Rating — Factory premises — Two premises not contiguous — Linked by highway — One occupier running one business in two premises — Whether two non-contiguous premises capable of constituting one hereditament — Whether subject premises in fact one hereditament
The appellant company occupies two premises, bays D and E and bays H to L of factory and office buildings on the Slough Trading Estate. Between the two sets of bays there is a single-bay factory and office unit occupied by an entirely unrelated company. The rateable values of bays D and E and bays H to L are £34,250 and £14,900 respectively. The appellants made a proposal that the two premises should be entered in the valuation list as one hereditament at an agreed rateable value of £46,500 on the basis that they were occupied by the same occupier and there was a functional connection between the two.
The Berkshire local valuation court decided that the two premises must be regarded as two hereditaments. The appellants appealed that decision, contending that although the two premises were not contiguous, they were linked by a highway and could be regarded as one hereditament.
Held The appeal was allowed. It is possible to find that two premises that are geographically separated are in fact one hereditament, although the decided cases confirm the extreme difficulty in establishing on the facts of each case that a functional connection is indeed sufficiently strong to overcome geographical separation. The general rules were stated by Lord Denning LJ in Gilbert (VO) v Hickinbottom & Sons Ltd [1956] 2 QB 40.
On the evidence of the use of the two premises by the appellant company, there is a continuous flow from one set of bays to the other of parts required for their business of assembling electrical goods. There is a flow of items between the two premises requiring painting, storing or testing.
The practical link between the two premises, a public highway, is insufficient in itself to establish a single hereditament. The use of the link must be sufficient to establish that there is an interdependence between the two premises to overcome the geographical separation. The evidence of the interdependence in this case established the link and the premises could be regarded as a single hereditament.
Matthew Horton (instructed by Frere Cholmeley) appeared for the appellants; and Mr Alan Sainer (of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue’s department) appeared for the respondent valuation officer.