Lamb & Shirley Ltd v Valuation Officer

For regulation 13(8A) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993, an increase must be assessed by comparing the rateable value shown before and after alteration for the same hereditament. Where premises previously occupied as separate units are entered as two hereditaments and later entered as one hereditament, the aggregate of the former values is not the rateable value shown for the latter. The distinction between property and hereditament is decisive. An alteration correcting the inaccurate division therefore does not fall within regulation 13(8A) merely because the new single-unit assessment exceeds the aggregate of the earlier assessments.

Lamb & Shirley Ltd occupied premises which had formerly comprised two separate units. Although the premises had been occupied and used as a single unit since 1986, the 1990 local non-domestic rating list retained two hereditament entries. In 1995 the Valuation Officer substituted one entry and assessed a substantially higher rateable value, making the alteration effective from 1 April 1990.

The Central London Valuation Tribunal held that regulation 13(8A) applied, making the alteration effective from 20 March 1995. The Lands Tribunal reversed that decision: [1999] RA 373. The appeal concerned whether the alteration increased the rateable value shown for the hereditament to which the inaccuracy related.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Lands Tribunal reached the right conclusion for the right reasons. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of £6,772.50.
2. Regulation 13(8A) requires comparison of the rateable value shown after alteration with any rateable value previously shown for the same hereditament to which the inaccuracy relates.
3. In this case, the relevant hereditament was the single hereditament shown after alteration. The two entries in the 1990 list represented different hereditaments. Their aggregate values were not a rateable value shown for the single hereditament, whether or not the earlier figures had been calculated on an incorrect basis.
4. The court accepted that “rateable value” could include a value calculated on an incorrect basis. That did not permit separate values for different hereditaments to be aggregated and treated as the value of one hereditament. The argument impermissibly confused property with hereditament.
5. That construction was also consistent with the statutory scheme, under which each hereditament has its own rateable value. The rateable value of premises assessed as one unit may differ from the aggregate of values assessed for separate units because of valuation considerations, including the mode or category of occupation.
6. References to other provisions of the 1993 Regulations and the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provided little assistance. Regulation 13(8A) had its natural meaning and did not apply to the alteration.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Lands Tribunal’s decision, reported at [1999] RA 373.
• 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.
• Central London Valuation Tribunal: held that regulation 13(8A) applied and that the alteration was effective from 20 March 1995.