Rates — Floating vessel — Appellant challenging finding of Lands Tribunal that permanently moored vessel used as nightclub was rateable — Whether appellant in occupation of land — Appeal dismissed
The appellant operated a nightclub on a former vehicle ferry moored on the River Tyne in Gateshead. Its right to berth the vessel was restricted to use as a restaurant, licensed premises, an hotel, a disco and a conference centre, and was set out in the appellant’s lease of an area of land fronting the river. The lease also contained a requirement to use the surface of the quay area for customer parking. The vessel was held in position by ropes and chains secured to capstans on the quayside, and access was provided by metal gangways. The vessel generated its own electricity, there being no mains connection. It was not connected to a public sewer, but water was supplied to the quay and thence to the vessel via a hose. There was also a telephone connection. The appellant held a mooring licence granted by the local authority. The vessel had been moored in the berth for nine years, save for one brief interruption.
The appellant appealed against a decision of the Lands Tribunal, overturning an earlier decision by a valuation tribunal, that rates were payable on the vessel under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under that Act, rates were chargeable only upon “hereditaments” in the nature of “land”, although, under the Interpretation Act 1978, land could include land covered by water. The Lands Tribunal’s conclusion that the vessel was rateable was based upon a finding that the boat was immobile and that the appellant’s occupation of it had the same degree of permanence and exclusiveness as would be the case for a nightclub constructed on dry land.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
It was an established principle that chattels could be rateable with land, and together form a rateable hereditament, if they were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value: Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding [1966] 2 QB 484 and London County Council v Wilkins (VO) [1957] AC 362 applied. Although those cases dealt with chattels that had been placed upon the land itself, the interposition of water between the vessel and the river bed did not act in any significant manner so as to deprive the appellant of occupation of the area of river bed that was the subject of the licence: Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Co Ltd [1936] AC 511 and Felgate (VO) v Lotus Enterprises Ltd [2000] RA 89 considered. Accordingly, the vessel satisfied the first test of rateability, namely that of actual occupational possession of land, set out in John Laing & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee [1949] 1 KB 344, and approved in Wilkins. There was no doubt that the other three tests were met, namely that the appellant’s occupation was: (i) exclusive (since that occupation was exclusive in fact, even though the appellant had no title to exclusive occupation: Westminster City Council applied); (ii) of some value or benefit to the occupier; and (iii) of a sufficient quality of permanence.
David Widdicombe QC and Robert Walton (instructed by Richmonds, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
