Tone of the list — 1973 valuation list — Effect of section 20 of 1967 Act — Whether 1973 setting or state of locality and use and occupation of premises at 1987 — Appeals decided, in all but one case, in favour of valuation officer
This hearing was concerned with 201 consolidated appeals from the Greater London (North East) Local Valuation Court relating to proposals by the valuation officer and some of the occupiers in respect of three buildings which are part of the Broadgate Development, which is partly in the City of London and the London Borough of Hackney. The principal issue was the contention of the ratepayers that the “tone of the lists” provisions of section 20 of the General Rate 1967 require that the hereditaments are assumed to have existed in a 1973 setting and valued on the basis of 1973 levels of value for such offices in such setting. The valuation officer and the rating authority contended that the hereditaments must be valued as they were at the proposal dates in 1987 and that the state of the locality and the occupation and use of premises in the locality be taken as they were at the proposal dates but assuming that those conditions existed in 1973 and taking account of how 1973 levels of value might be affected thereby.
Held Both the wording and purpose of section 20, and the interpretation placed on it by the House of Lords in Clement (VO) v Addis Ltd [1988] 1 EGLR 157; [1988] 10 EG 129, require the tribunal to make the assumption that the appeal hereditaments existed in 1973, and existed in the same context of locality, services and facilities as in fact had emerged by the proposal dates in 1987, and upon those assumptions to value the hereditaments as they would have been valued in 1973. “Locality” is not defined in the 1967 Act and must often remain imprecise and vary according to the circumstances. In the present case the locality covers an area which includes the City and parts of the adjoining boroughs which immediately abut. Accordingly, assessments of comparable modern office premises in the City and Islington are admissible and relevant.
(A number of subsidiary points were additionally determined — Editor.)
George Bartlett QC and Charles Fay (instructed by Freshfields) appeared for Shearson Lehman Brothers Ltd and called M M Conneely ARICS; Guy Roots QC and Michael Humphries (instructed by Linklaters & Paines and Denton Hall Burgin & Warrens) appeared for Security Pacific Hoare Govett (Holdings) Ltd and Paine Webber International Inc respectively and called J C Bassett FRICS; Michael Fitzgerald QC and Christopher Lewsley (instructed by Macfarlanes) appeared for S G Warburg Group Management Ltd; David Keene QC and David Mole QC (instructed by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue) appeared for the valuation officer, who was called together with D Levene ARICS and J S Prisk FRICS; and Michael Rich QC and John Male (instructed by the solicitor to Hackney London Borough Council) appeared for the rating authority.
