Section 24 of the 1925 Act was considered.
Held: The House re-instated the decision at divisional level. The court described the basis upon which a property was to be valued for rating purposes. Viscount Maugham said it concerned: ‘ a hypothetical tenant and a hypothetical rent, but . . a real and concrete hereditament’. As to the legal background of the 1925 Act, he said: ‘The hypothetical tenant was assumed to be a tenant from year to year with a reasonable prospect of continuing in occupation; but the hypothetical rent which the tenant could give was estimated with reference to the hereditament in its actual physical condition (rebus sic stantibus), and a continuance of the existing state of things was prima facie to be presumed.’
Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘The plant and machinery referred to in [section 24 of the 1925 Act] include plant and machinery whose function is, not to execute any manufacturing operation or trade process, but to generate and transmit power to, or to warm, or cool, or ventilate, or light, etc., the hereditaments in question. They may be conveniently called ‘motive plant and machinery,’ while manufacturing or trade process plant and machinery may be conveniently referred to as ‘process plant and machinery.’
and ‘The Lord Chief Justice . . thought that on the construction of s. 24 the matter was plain, and that on its clear language the object of the section was to get rid of the old doctrine that although machinery not forming part of a hereditament could not be rated, nevertheless the rateable value of a hereditament was to be enhanced by reference to the machinery which was in it, and which made it appropriate to the particular industry carried on therein. Under the section motive plant and machinery is to be deemed part of the hereditament which is being valued; as to process plant and machinery, no account is to be taken of its value with respect to the valuation of the hereditament.’
Judges:
Viscount Maughan, Lord Russell of Killowen
Citations:
[1937] AC 419
Statutes:
Rating and Valuation Act 1925 24
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At Divisional Court – Townley Mill (1919) Limited v Oldham Assessment Committee KBD 1936
Lord Hewart CJ said: ‘When one turns to the Third Schedule of the [1925] Act, it is apparent that it enumerates that type of machinery and plant which is conveniently described in the case as motive machinery; it is the machinery without which the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Orange PCS v Alan Roy Bradford (Valuation Officer) CA 17-Feb-2004
The claimant challenged the rating of the land it had used for the erection of a mobile ohone mast.
Held: Even though the company had the statutory right to place a mast in this location and without payment, for rating purposes the officer . .
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) CA 23-Nov-2016
The court was asked whether the air handling system used by Iceland Foods Limited in its retail store at Liverpool was plant or machinery ‘used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing . .
Cited – Newbigin (Valuation Officer) v SJ and J Monk (A Firm) SC 1-Mar-2017
The court was asked: ‘Does a commercial building which is in the course of redevelopment have to be valued for the purposes of rating as if it were still a useable office? ‘
Held: Appeal from decision of CA granted. On the facts found by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.193769