Respondent occupying part of hereditament – Magistrates finding respondent not in exclusive occupation therefore not liable for rates – Appellants appealing decision – Local Government Finance Act 1988 section 43(1) – Appeal dismissed
In September 1988 the respondent entered into a licence agreement for 11 months with Blisland Ltd, under which the respondent was permitted to occupy office accommodation on various floors of Bensham House. Blisland owned and also occupied the premises. At the end of the 11 months, the respondent continued to occupy the second and third floors of the premises on the terms specified in the licence. Throughout the whole period of occupancy, the respondent occupied such parts of the building, not limited to the second and third floors, as allocated to it by Blisland. In 1995 the appellants’ rating list was amended to show a separate hereditament, consisting of the second and third floors and naming the respondent as occupier. In December 1995 the appellants issued a demand upon the respondent for arrears of business rates for those two floors for the period 1994 to 1996. The magistrates found that Blisland was in paramount occupation of the two floors and refused to grant a liability order against the respondent. The issue was whether the magistrates had erred in concluding that the respondent was not in exclusive occupation of the relevant floors of the premises and was not liable for payment of the rates claimed by the appellants. The appellants submitted that the law, as under the General Rate Act 1967, was changed by section 43(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, under which a ratepayer is liable for the non-domestic rates if in occupation of only part of the hereditament.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The law was not changed by section 43(1) of the 1988 Act. The reference in section 43(1) to part of a hereditament reflected the fact that someone in occupation for only part of a year was liable to pay only a proportionate part of the rates for the relevant year. But for the reference to “part” in section 43(1), an occupier that was in occupation for only a short period of any relevant year, and was not in occupation of the whole, could escape liability for rates for that temporary period, although the amount involved could be substantial. The combined effect of sections 43(1) and 44A(1) rendered an occupier liable for an apportioned rate: Verrall v Hackney London Borough Council [1983] QB 445 and Ford v Burnley Magistrates’ Court [1995] RA 205 applied.
Robert Levy (instructed by Blake Lapthorn, of Portsmouth) appeared for the appellants; William Okoya (instructed by Pickworths, of St Albans) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
