Rating law — Rateable occupation — Sports ground, premises and contents purchased for resale — Whether hereditament occupied for rating purposes
The appellant company had purchased a property consisting of a sports ground and annexed premises. The buildings were acquired together with their contents. The company had purchased the property with a view to making a profit on resale and did not as such take up occupation. The company ensured that the property was maintained and that was about the only use it made of the property.
The company appealed by way of a case stated from a decision of the South Yorkshire justices that it was in rateable occupation; it was argued on behalf of the company that there were no facts apart from the presence of some machinery and the cutting of the grass which could be regarded as evidence of occupation. The provision in issue was section 46A(1) of the General Rate Act 1967 as inserted by the Rates Act 1984: this provides relief for non-domestic hereditaments not in active use. A hereditament “shall be treated as unoccupied if, apart from this section, it would fall to be treated as occupied by reason only of there being kept in or on the hereditament plant, machinery or equipment–(a) which was used in or on the hereditament when it was last in use; or (b) which is intended for use in or on the hereditament.”
Held The magistrates had not adopted the proper approach under the legislation. The proper approach is to inquire whether the premises were unoccupied but for the presence of “plant”, as now allowed for by section 46A(1) of the General Rate Act 1967, and if they were so unoccupied, then for rating purposes there is no occupation. The magistrates had taken into account other factors and had they disregarded these they could only have formed the opinion that the premises were unoccupied.
Associated Cinema Properties Ltd v Hampstead BC [1944] KB 412 and Arbuckle Smith & Co Ltd v Greenock Corpn [1960] AC 813 considered.
Stephen Sauvain (instructed by Addleshaw Sons & Latham, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; and Christopher Lewsley (instructed by the solicitor to the council) appeared for the respondent.
