Rating law — Rateable occupation — Bay in warehouse — Estate agent’s particulars offering warehousing — Whether freehold owner in rateable occupation
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 agent’s 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 the offer could be for a long, medium or short-term basis for letting.
The matter came before the Rotherham justices, who held that under these particulars the company was indicating that the bay was open for business as a warehouse. The justices found as a fact that even if the company did not itself provide warehousing services, it could do so indirectly, and accordingly the company was in rateable occupation.
Held On a case stated by the justices on the question whether they had been right in holding that the company was in rateable occupation, the company’s objects were widely drawn and did include managing a warehouse. It was open to the justices to read the estate agent’s particulars as an indication that the company was offering warehousing and the bay was open for business. The justices were entitled to have made their findings on the facts before them even if the present court might have made different findings.
John Laing & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Area Assessment Committee [1949] 1 KB 344,
R v St Pancras Assessment Committee (1877) 2 QBD 581 and
R v Melladew [1907] 1 KB 192 considered.
David Widdicombe QC and John Grove (instructed by Muscatt Walker Hayim) appeared for the appellants; and Patrick Hamlin (instructed by the solicitor to the council) appeared for the respondent rating authority.
