Rating law — Rateable occupation — Beneficial occupation — Estate agents’ particulars offering warehousing — Whether freehold owner in rateable occupation — Ratepayers’ appeal allowed
NMT Properties, the predecessor in name to Calmain Properties Ltd, were the freehold owners of a warehouse in the Rotherham area. Bays 1 to 3 were let to a warehousing company. Bay 4 was not used until after a period for which the local rating authority sought to charge NMT for some £19,000 in rates on the basis that the company was in rateable occupation. At some time in late 1982/early 1983 bay 4 was advertised in estate agents’ particulars in a characteristically vague way. These particulars might have given the indication that bay 4 was open for warehousing business; that the user of the bay might be responsible for rates; the charges for its use were not referred to in normal warehousing terms; and, that the offer was for long, medium, or short-term basis for letting.
In the court below the appellants contended that they were a property company seeking tenants and not a warehouse company seeking customers. In rejecting this argument, Kennedy J ([1988] 1 EGLR 166) held that the Rotherham justices were entitled to read the estate agents’ particulars as an indication that the company was offering warehousing and the bay was open for business; and that on those facts they were entitled to find that the company was in rateable occupation.
Held The appeal was allowed. The evidence indicated that a lease of the “building” was being offered, and this was inconsistent with the company being in occupation for rating purposes. The estate agents’ particulars made reference to the lessors being prepared to consider leases of the building for short, medium or long-term periods. The statutory test was not whether the building was open for business, but who was the occupier. The company were not warehousemen and were not in rateable occupation; the estate agents’ particulars suggested that some other party would go into occupation, either to occupy or as an intermediary.
R v Melladew
[1907] 1 KB 192 distinguished;
Borwick v Southwark Corporation
[1909] 1 KB 78 considered.
David Widdicombe QC and Alun Alesbury (instructed by Muscatt Walker & Co) appeared for the appellants; and Keith Hanlon (instructed by T C Mumford, director of legal and administrative services, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
