Diplomatic premises — Left vacant — Squatters in occupation — Unincorporated association — Rates demanded from leading member — Magistrate finding no exclusive occupation — Magistrate putting respondent to his election as to evidence — Whether decision of magistrate correct
The old Cambodian embassy was vacated by the diplomats in the mid 1970s, since when no rates have been paid. The premises were occupied by an unincorporated association, the Guild of Transcendental Studies, between April 1984 and March 1987 and the appellant rating authority sought to recover from the respondent, a leading member, some £27,090 in rates. In proceedings before the stipendiary magistrate under section 97(1) of the General Rate Act 1967, the magistrate found there was insufficient evidence of exclusive occupation and put the respondent to his election whether to call evidence at the conclusion of the appellants’ case. The rating authority appealed by way of a case stated, contending that the conditions of exclusive occupation were satisfied and that the magistrate had been wrong in law in allowing the respondent to elect whether to call evidence.
Held The matter must be remitted to the magistrate.
1. The essential elements of rateable occupation are actual occupation, exclusive occupation for the purposes of the possession, benefit to the occupier and occupation that is not too transient. In relation to occupation by an unincorporated association, such a body is not itself capable of rateable occupation as it is not a legal entity: R v Brighton Justices, ex parte Howard [1980] RA 222. But in a properly constituted association, occupation will be through its trustees, who are liable for the rates: Verrall v Hackney London Borough Council [1983] QB 445. In the absence of formal trustees, as in the present case, the person who is the guiding light may be a trustee by conduct, although the fact that a person is a prominent member is not sufficient of itself to answer a claim for rates under section 97 of the 1967 Act. Rateable occupation does not have to be lawful and a squatter’s liability for rates derives through occupancy not legal right: Cory v Bristow (1877) 2 App Cas 262. Contrary to the decision of the magistrate, there was sufficient evidence of exclusive occupation by the association, not negated by the fact that its members had separate rooms in the premises. The respondent acted as trustee, actual or by conduct, and he could be regarded as in rateable occupation.
2. Putting the respondent to his election, at the conclusion of the rating authority’s case, whether to call no evidence involved a matter of practice and discretion; as it was unclear how the magistrate had exercised this, the matter ought to be remitted to him, and if necessary the respondent should be allowed to call evidence if he so wished.
Richard Hone (instructed by the solicitor to Westminster City Council) appeared for the appellants; and D Broatch (instructed by Cohen & Naicker) appeared for the respondent.
