The appellant was the freehold owner of a motorway service area just off the M20 motorway near Maidstone. A rentcharge deed concluded between the appellant and the secretary of state for transport in 1997 set out a list of facilities to be provided there, including a specified amount of parking, free toilet facilities, a picnic area and petrol. Part of the service area was leased to another company for a term of 125 years; the leased area contained various facilities that the lessee had constructed at its own expense, including an amenity block containing a fast food restaurant, a self-service restaurant, a coffee area, various shops, toilets and ancillary accommodation, plus a motel, a car park and lorry park, circulation roads and landscaping. The terms of the lease reserved various rights of way and of passage for services in favour of the remaining, unlet part of the service area, on which there was a petrol filling station developed by the appellant at its own expense. The filling station and its associated forecourt shop were branded with the appellant and to abide by the appellant The respondent valuation officer listed the service area in the 2005 rating list as a single hereditament, contrary to the appellantprovide a set of facilities in order to operate as a motorway service station and that, since that primary purpose could not be achieved by separate and isolated operations on either the leased area or the petrol filling station, each was therefore functionally dependent on the other. It concluded that there was a single unit of assessment of which the lessee was in paramount occupation. The appellant appealed. It contended that the filling station should be assessed as a separate hereditament of which it was in rateable occupation. Held: The appeal was allowed. Whether premises amounted to one hereditament or multiple hereditaments would depend on the facts on the ground: North Eastern Railway Company v Guardians of York Union [1900] 1 QB 733, Gilbert (VO) v S Hickinbottom & Sons Ltd [1956] 2 QB 40 applied. Once the hereditament was identified, it was then necessary to determine, as a question of fact, who was in rateable occupation of it by reference to the four relevant tests, which required actual occupation, which was exclusively for the purposes of the possessor, was of some value or benefit to the possessor, and was not for too transient a period: John Laing & Son Ltd v Assessment Committee for Kingswood Assessment Area [1949] 1 KB 344 applied. It was possible for there to be two simultaneous occupants, in which case the factual question arose as to whose occupation was paramount. The essential factual test of paramountcy was control, which would depend on the facts of the case: Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Co [1936] AC 511 applied. The area of the petrol filling station was capable of being a separate hereditament. The fact that the land was held by the appellant and not leased to the lessee, in contrast to the remainder of the service area, was significant, although not conclusive, in that regard. The respective rights of the occupying parties formed an essential part of the factual setting. Further, the appellant occupied the filling station land for its own purposes. It had separately retained, built on and equipped that land in order to further its own business interests, primarily that of selling fuel. The lessee carried out the process of selling fuel as the appellant The lessee could also be said to occupy the filling station for its own purposes in circumstances where, under the agency agreement, it arranged most of the day-to-day running of the fuel station through its own staff. Accordingly, there were two actual occupants of the filling station and it was necessary to determine which of the two occupiers was paramount. In that regard, the appellant As a matter of fact and degree, therefore, the appellant was in paramount occupation of the petrol filling station element of the service area. The petrol filling station was a separate hereditament, the occupant of which was the appellant. Neil King and Richard Turney (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell LLP) appeared for the appellant; Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by the legal department of HM Revenue and Customs) appeared for the respondent. Sally Dobson, barrister
The appellant was the freehold owner of a motorway service area just off the M20 motorway near Maidstone. A rentcharge deed concluded between the appellant and the secretary of state for transport in 1997 set out a list of facilities to be provided there, including a specified amount of parking, free toilet facilities, a picnic area and petrol. Part of the service area was leased to another company for a term of 125 years; the leased area contained various facilities that the lessee had constructed at its own expense, including an amenity block containing a fast food restaurant, a self-service restaurant, a coffee area, various shops, toilets and ancillary accommodation, plus a motel, a car park and lorry park, circulation roads and landscaping. The terms of the lease reserved various rights of way and of passage for services in favour of the remaining, unlet part of the service area, on which there was a petrol filling station developed by the appellant at its own expense. The filling station and its associated forecourt shop were branded with the appellant and to abide by the appellant The respondent valuation officer listed the service area in the 2005 rating list as a single hereditament, contrary to the appellantprovide a set of facilities in order to operate as a motorway service station and that, since that primary purpose could not be achieved by separate and isolated operations on either the leased area or the petrol filling station, each was therefore functionally dependent on the other. It concluded that there was a single unit of assessment of which the lessee was in paramount occupation. The appellant appealed. It contended that the filling station should be assessed as a separate hereditament of which it was in rateable occupation. Held: The appeal was allowed. Whether premises amounted to one hereditament or multiple hereditaments would depend on the facts on the ground: North Eastern Railway Company v Guardians of York Union [1900] 1 QB 733, Gilbert (VO) v S Hickinbottom & Sons Ltd [1956] 2 QB 40 applied. Once the hereditament was identified, it was then necessary to determine, as a question of fact, who was in rateable occupation of it by reference to the four relevant tests, which required actual occupation, which was exclusively for the purposes of the possessor, was of some value or benefit to the possessor, and was not for too transient a period: John Laing & Son Ltd v Assessment Committee for Kingswood Assessment Area [1949] 1 KB 344 applied. It was possible for there to be two simultaneous occupants, in which case the factual question arose as to whose occupation was paramount. The essential factual test of paramountcy was control, which would depend on the facts of the case: Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Co [1936] AC 511 applied. The area of the petrol filling station was capable of being a separate hereditament. The fact that the land was held by the appellant and not leased to the lessee, in contrast to the remainder of the service area, was significant, although not conclusive, in that regard. The respective rights of the occupying parties formed an essential part of the factual setting. Further, the appellant occupied the filling station land for its own purposes. It had separately retained, built on and equipped that land in order to further its own business interests, primarily that of selling fuel. The lessee carried out the process of selling fuel as the appellant The lessee could also be said to occupy the filling station for its own purposes in circumstances where, under the agency agreement, it arranged most of the day-to-day running of the fuel station through its own staff. Accordingly, there were two actual occupants of the filling station and it was necessary to determine which of the two occupiers was paramount. In that regard, the appellant As a matter of fact and degree, therefore, the appellant was in paramount occupation of the petrol filling station element of the service area. The petrol filling station was a separate hereditament, the occupant of which was the appellant. Neil King and Richard Turney (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell LLP) appeared for the appellant; Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by the legal department of HM Revenue and Customs) appeared for the respondent. Sally Dobson, barrister