Rating–Shaftesbury Theatre not being used for storage when closed for repairs–Issue one of fact for lower court, divisional court not obliged on the authorities to intervene
This was an
appeal by the London Borough of Camden against the dismissal by a stipendiary
magistrate sitting at Wells Street, London, on October 21 1975 of an
application for a warrant against the respondents, Peureula Investments Ltd,
for non-payment of £10,533.12 general rates for the period October 1 1973 to
November 30 1974 in respect of the Shaftesbury Theatre, London.
Mr G R
Bartlett (instructed by the town clerk) appeared for the appellants, and Mr A P
Fletcher (instructed by Harold Stern & Co) represented the respondents.
Giving judgment
LORD WIDGERY said that the claim arose out of an incident at the theatre in
July 1973, when part of the auditorium ceiling collapsed during a performance
of the musical ‘Hair.’ As a result of
that the theatre was closed, the show transferred to another theatre and the
building stripped of interior fittings with the exception of the safety
curtain, the seats and carpets. Although it was not contended that the
respondents had had the use of the building as a theatre during the period for
which rates were claimed, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the
respondents had had the beneficial use of the building for the storage of the
contents. The learned stipendiary magistrate had taken what appeared to be the
only sensible view. He had said that the premises had been designed as a
theatre, they were not used as a theatre during the relevant period, and
therefore liability for rates did not arise.
The only
question requiring consideration by the Divisional Court was whether or not
some of the older authorities required the court to say that the magistrate’s
decision should not be allowed to stand. The case of Staley v Castleton
Overseers (1864) 5 B & S 505 concerned a cotton mill which could not be
used owing to the shortage of cotton in the American Civil War. The mill
occupiers kept the mill in shipshape order so that when cotton again became
available the mill would be ready. When the rating demand was made the mill
owners claimed that they were not liable, but the reply, upheld by the courts, was
that the owners had had the beneficial occupation in that they were using the
premises for the storage of machinery and engines. That was a decision of fact,
as was the decision in the present case, and here he (his Lordship) had no
inclination to overturn the magistrate’s finding. It was not right to say that
the theatre, when it was closed for repairs, was being used for the storage of
the seats, safety curtain and carpets. He would dismiss the appeal.
CROOM-JOHNSON
and MAY JJ agreed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
