W and JB Eastwood Ltd v Herrod (VO): HL 1971

The House was asked whether buildings used for producing broiler chickens were agricultural buildings. They would be exempt had it been possible to say that they were used ‘solely’ in connection with the agricultural operations on the land together with which they were occupied, which was used for the production of barely which was converted into poultry food. Held; The key words were ‘used in connection with’. The ordinary usage of the English language suggested that the buildings must be subsidiary or ancillary to the agricultural operations, and that he did not foresee serious difficulty if the phrase was held to mean use consequential on or ancillary to the agricultural operations on the land which was occupied together with the buildings. The use of the buildings were in no sense ancillary to the agricultural operations on the land, as it was a large commercial enterprise in which the use of the land played a very minor part.


Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest and Viscount Dilhorne.


[1971] AC 160


Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 2(2)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints HL 30-Jul-2008
The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Agriculture

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.272219