Section 17A of General Rate Act 1967 as amended by the Local Government Act 1974–Claim for unpaid surcharge on unused commercial building–Dismissal of information by justices–Appeal by case stated–Justices applied wrong principle–Respondents had done their best to sell, but section 17A required owner, in order to avoid liability, to have done best to let–Rents asked too high–Appeal by council allowed
This was an
appeal by case stated by Nuneaton Borough Council against the dismissal by
Nuneaton justices on May 17 1976 of an information preferred against Groatlan
Property Holdings Ltd, formerly Beadle Property Holdings Ltd, of London,
alleging non-payment of £1,074 rating surcharge due under section 17A of the General
Rate Act 1967 as amended by section 16 of the Local Government Act 1974, in
respect of unused commercial premises in Abbey Street, Nuneaton, for the period
February 1974 to July 1975.
A Fletcher
(instructed by Sharpe, Pritchard & Co, agents for P C Eccles, solicitor’s
department, Nuneaton Borough Council) appeared for the appellants. The
respondents were not represented.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY CJ, said that by section 17A of the General Rate Act
1967 rating authorities were empowered to levy a surcharge on commercial
premises which were unused for the purposes for which they were constructed for
a period in excess of six months. In the present case the respondents had
raised the defence that they had done their best to let the premises. The justices
had accepted that defence and had dismissed the information. It was now
contended on behalf of the appellants that, on the findings of the justices,
there was no evidence to support that decision.
The property
in question became the respondents’ in October 1973, before the surcharge
legislation became effective. Attempts were made to let or sell the property
but without success. The provisions of section 17A became effective on February
8 1974, and during the next few months the respondents continued to try to let
or sell the property, but it was not sold until July 1975.
In order to
succeed before the justices the respondents had to show that during the
relevant period they had done their best to let the property. Although trying
to sell the property appeared to have been the respondents’ main occupation,
their attempts to let the property at £4,000 per annum, later reduced to £2,500
per annum, had been without success because the proposed rents were too high.
It was one of
those cases where the facts were so powerful in one direction that the
justices, in some way, had misled themselves and applied the wrong principle.
The test was not whether the respondents had done their best to sell the
property but whether they had done their best to let it. In his judgment the
appeal should be allowed.
MELFORD
STEVENSON and SLYNN JJ agreed.
Appeal
allowed. Case to be sent back to the justices with a direction to issue a
distress warrant for the amount claimed.
