Lamb & Shirley Ltd v Bliss

For an alteration correcting an inaccuracy in a non-domestic rating list, regulation 13(8A) requires comparison between the rateable value shown before and after alteration for the same hereditament. The relevant hereditament is the one shown after alteration. A rateable value calculated on an incorrect basis may still qualify, but values assigned to different hereditaments cannot be aggregated and treated as the value of a single hereditament. Where two separately valued hereditaments are replaced by one entry, the correction does not increase the rateable value shown for that single hereditament if no value for it appeared previously. Regulation 13(8A) therefore does not apply on that basis.

Lamb & Shirley Ltd occupied premises converted from two units into one. The 1990 rating list nevertheless retained two entries. In 1994 the Valuation Officer proposed a correction and, on 20 March 1995, substituted a single entry with a higher rateable value than the aggregate of the former values.

The Central London Valuation Tribunal held that regulation 13(8A) applied, making the alteration effective from 20 March 1995. The Lands Tribunal allowed the Valuation Officer’s appeal and held that the alteration had retrospective effect from 1 April 1990: [1999] RA 373. The central issue was whether the alteration increased the rateable value shown for the relevant hereditament.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Jonathan Parker delivered the judgment, with Pill LJ and Butler-Sloss P agreeing.

1. Required comparison. Under regulation 13(8A) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993, the court must compare the rateable value shown after alteration for the hereditament to which the inaccuracy relates with any rateable value previously shown for that same hereditament. In an alteration correcting an inaccuracy, the relevant hereditament is the one shown after alteration.
2. Separate hereditaments. The two entries in the 1990 list represented different hereditaments. Their aggregate values were not a rateable value shown for the single hereditament later entered in the list. The distinction between property and hereditament was decisive. Each hereditament has its own rateable value, and the value of property assessed as one unit may differ from the aggregate value of its component parts.
3. The court accepted that regulation 13(8A) may involve a rateable value calculated on an incorrect basis. That did not permit values relating to different hereditaments to be treated as a value for the single post-alteration hereditament.
4. References to the remaining provisions of the 1993 Regulations and the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provided little or no assistance. Regulation 13(8A) was to be given its natural meaning. The Lands Tribunal reached the right conclusion for the right reasons.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of £6,772.50.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2001] EWCA Civ 473, unanimously dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and upheld the Lands Tribunal’s decision.
• Lands Tribunal — Allowed the Valuation Officer’s appeal from the Central London Valuation Tribunal and held that the alteration was effective retrospectively from 1 April 1990: [1999] RA 373.
• Central London Valuation Tribunal — Held that the alteration fell within regulation 13(8A) and was effective from 20 March 1995.