National Car Parks Ltd. v Baird (Valuation Officer) & Anor

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to the dates shown on non-domestic rating lists. The court held that the valuation officer's duty under section 41(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to compile and maintain accurate rating lists is to be performed in accordance with the detailed regime in Part III of that Act, notably section 55 and the regulations made under it. Regulation 13 and regulation 15 of the 1993 Regulations (as amended by the 1994 Regulations) prescribed the dates from which alterations to lists take effect, and a valuation officer is not under a standalone duty to make an alteration at a particular time or within a reasonable time so as to import a different effective date.

The court rejected claims of legitimate expectation and of a co-relative private right arising from oral agreements between NCP's agents and valuation officers: any agreement was only evidence of the correct value and could not qualify the valuation officer's public duty. The court also held there was no accrued right of the appellant abrogated by the 1994 regulations, so issues of retrospectivity and sections 16 and 23 of the Interpretation Act 1978 did not arise.

Background and procedural posture. National Car Parks Ltd owned two car park hereditaments. Agents for NCP reached oral agreements with valuation officers in January and April 1994 about reduced rateable values. The valuation officers then altered the rating lists in July/August 1994 after the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 came into force on 9 July 1994. Those 1994 Regulations affected the date from which such alterations took effect, producing an effective date of 1 April 1990 rather than 1 April 1992. NCP proposed further alterations and appeals; valuation tribunals dismissed NCP's appeals (1996) and the Lands Tribunal (President Bartlett) dismissed the appeals on 21 August 2003. NCP appealed to the Court of Appeal on questions of law only.

Nature of the claim / relief sought. NCP sought to have the lists altered so that the effective date of the agreed reductions would be 1 April 1992 (thereby preserving eligibility for transitional relief), contending that the valuation officers were bound to alter the lists in accordance with the agreements as to value and that NCP had a legitimate expectation or accrued right that the alterations would take effect from 1 April 1992.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether valuation officers had a duty under s.41(1) or otherwise to alter the lists at a particular time (for example on withdrawal of appeals or within a reasonable time) so that alterations would be effective from 1 April 1992.
• Whether oral agreements or an understanding gave rise to a legitimate expectation or a co-relative private right enforceable against valuation officers.
• Whether the 1994 Regulations unlawfully affected any accrued right or legitimate expectation and whether issues of retrospectivity / Interpretation Act 1978 ss.16 and 23 arose.

Court's reasoning and disposition. The court held that s.41(1) must be read in the statutory context of s.55 and the regulations made under that section; the regulations prescribe the date from which an alteration takes effect. The valuation officer's public duty cannot be qualified by an agreement with a particular ratepayer and an oral agreement is merely evidence of the correct value. The court refused to imply into s.41(1) any temporal obligation to alter the list on a particular date or within a reasonable time; whether delay gives rise to unlawfulness depends on all the circumstances, including subject-matter, length of delay, reasons for delay and prejudice. Applying that approach, and having regard to the nature of valuation work and the absence of foreseeable prejudice to NCP from the delay, the court concluded there was no unlawful delay and no legitimate expectation that the valuation officer would act otherwise than in accordance with the law at the date of alteration. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The court held that the valuation officers were not under a duty, either by section 41(1) or by necessary implication, to alter the rating lists at a particular time or within a reasonable time such that the effective date of alteration would differ from that prescribed by the regulations in force when the alteration was made. Oral agreements were only evidence of value and could not create a private right or legitimate expectation to override the statutory regime; on the facts any delay did not amount to unlawful breach of statutory duty.

Appeal from the Lands Tribunal (President Bartlett QC) which dismissed the appellant's appeals on 21 August 2003 after earlier valuation tribunal decisions (1996) had dismissed the appellant's challenges. This Court of Appeal handed down judgment [2004] EWCA Civ 967 on 22 July 2004.