J Laing and Son V Kingswood AC [1949]
The four ingredients of rateable occupation - actual, beneficial, exclusive and not too transient.
Westminster City Council V Southern Railway Co [1936]
The occupier not the land is rateable but the occupier is rateable in respect of the land he occupies. Separate rateability of a bookstall on Victoria Station. Held that a person must be in exclusive occupation for purposes of rating if occupation to be paramount for the purpose for which the land is being used.
Gilbert (VO) V Hickinbottom and Sons Ltd [1965]
Bakery and workshop situated on opposite sides of a public highway. Case concerned whether an essential functional link existed between the 2 parts so a single hereditament. Held that a repair workshop functionally essential to the bakery and therefore one hereditament. Sets down basic rules to be followed and is the leading authority on the merger of hereditaments.
Woolway V Mazars (2015)
Consideration of the unit of assessment. Two floors in an office building separated by common areas should be assessed as two separate hereditaments. This was a Supreme Court Ruling.
Benjamin (VO) V Anston Properties
Case preceded the 1999 Rating (Valuation) Act. It concerned a 1960s office building damaged by fire and in poor repair. Appellant successfully argued that it was beyond the cost of economic repair by the hypothetical tenant. The Lands Tribunal provided an economic test when they decided the valuation for rating could take account of disrepair that could be remedied at a cost less than twice the rateable value of the hereditament. The decision led to the introduction of the Rating (Valuation) Act 1999.
Newbigin (VO) v SJ & J Monk (2017)
Building in the course of redevelopment to residential use could not be assumed to be in a reasonable state of repair and valued as offices. instead it had to be valued as a building undergoing reconstruction and valued at the nominal amount.
Jackson (VO) V Canary Wharf (2019)
The statutory repair assumption as set out in para, 2(1) of Schedule 6 to the LGFA 1988 generally operates as set out in the Court of Appeals judgement in Mon; There is an exception for those hereditaments that are incapable of beneficial occupation because they are undergoing redevelopment, as held in the Supreme Court Judgement. The Supreme Court decided that the application of the repairing assumption was not appropriate for a building undergoing reconstruction and which was consequently incapable of beneficial occupation. The prior question which must be answered is whether the ‘damage’ that has occurred is indicative of a scheme of reconstruction (which includes significant refurbishment/refitting in addition to complete demolition and new building) that has rendered the building incapable of beneficial occupation.
Fir Mill Ltd V Royton UDC and Jones [1960]
“This part of the rule rests on the principle that the hereditament is to be valued in its actual condition on the material day - as it was rebus sic stantibus. We emphasise that the alterations must be minor…. The correct approach is to look at the totality of the works in the context of the hereditament and then ask the question are those works minor works?”
and at para 173
“The range of potential hypothetical tenants would therefore be restricted to those willing to occupy the properties in their existing condition
Williams (VO) v Scottish & Newcastle Retail Ltd and Allied Domecq Retailing Ltd
(Court of Appeal, 2001)
‘ the mode or category of occupation by the hypothetical tenant must be conceived as being the same mode or category as that of the actual occupier…. As shop as a shop, but not any particular kind of shop.’
“Any evidence relating to the rents or assessments of other hereditaments may be taken into account provided it is relevant to the valuation. There is no rule that evidence relating to another hereditament is irrelevant if that other hereditament is in a different mode or category of occupation”
Mode or category of use is taken in its broadest sense, a narrow construction has been rejected by the Tribunals. Therefore, rental evidence from hereditaments in the same mode or category of occupation as the subject provide the strongest evidence.
In Williams v Scottish & Newcastle it was held that a restaurant is not in the same mode or category of occupation as a shop and that therefore a restaurant should not be valued as a shop, nor a shop as a restaurant.
What are the two limbs of Rebus?
1) Physical state limb – the hereditament is valued in its actual physical condition at the material day, subject only to minor hypothetical alterations.
2) Mode or category of occupation limb – the hereditament must be valued in its existing mode or category of occupation, not as some different or more profitable use.
Specialeyes plc v Felgate (VO) [1994] RA 338
Rents set after AVD are useful indicators of trend regarding the state and changes in the open market.
