2020 Case Law Review

Phil Ray, BSc MRICS, takes a look at a number of the more notable cases litigated through the Court system in the past year, testing both the interpretation of legislation and established precedents.

In Hughes v. Exeter City Council the Lands Chamber carried out an extensive review of the underlying principles and held that there was no principle that prevented the receipts and expenditure method from being used for buildings occupied other than for profit where the circumstances and the evidence justified it.

The Court of Appeal subsequently refused permission to appeal the ruling in favour of Exeter City Council over the rateable valuation of the city’s Grade II-listed Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery which was reduced from £510,000 to a nominal £1.

“The Valuation Office claimed that the ruling could see billions of pounds of Rateable Value removed from public buildings. But museums are regarded as essential for socio-economic benefits rather than as profit making facilities, particularly by local authorities. They are frequently operated from listed buildings. In short, for most museums, no-one would pay a positive rent in an open-market letting.”

The Supreme Court in Cardtronics UK Ltd and Others v Sykes and Others (Valuation Officers) unanimously upheld the decision of the Court below in favour of the ratepayers concluding that although the site of an ATM is capable of being a separate hereditament, the host superstores and shops had retained sufficient control of the sites, and consequently they remained part of the host hereditaments.

“This was a victory for common sense but then presented a significant logistical exercise involved in undoing the consequences of the Valuation Office Agency’s decision to separately rate ATM machines, although that appears to be coming to an end.”

Southwark London Borough Council v Ludgate House Ltd and Another. The Court of Appeal held that an office building occupied by property guardians, pending redevelopment, remained a single hereditament for rating purposes with the property owner remaining in rateable occupation of premises.

“This case will have significant implications for the efficacy of guardian schemes.”

Stock Auto Breakers Ltd v Sykes (Valuation Officer) posed the question whether new evidence was admissible at the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under Check Challenge Appeal regulations and was the first appeal under the CCA regulations to be heard. The tribunal confirmed it was not bound by Reg 17A of the 2009 Procedure Regs as this only affected proceedings at the Valuation Tribunal so fresh evidence put forward by the parties was admissible although Upper Tribunal Rule 16(2)(b)(iii) does allow the Tribunal to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible where it would otherwise be unfair to admit.

“If applied wisely, the decision paves the way for new evidence to be successfully introduced.”