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

A statutory duty which does not prescribe a time for performance does not automatically import a duty to act within a reasonable time. Whether delay amounts to breach depends on all the circumstances, including the duty’s subject matter and context, the delay’s length and reasons, and any actual or potential prejudice.

A valuation officer’s continuing public duty to maintain an accurate non-domestic rating list does not give an individual ratepayer a right to alteration at a particular time. An alteration must take effect from the date prescribed by the regulations in force when it is made. An expectation based on administrative practice cannot require a public officer to act otherwise than according to the law then applicable.

National Car Parks Ltd obtained oral agreements with two valuation officers reducing the rateable values of car parks in Manchester and Kensington. It withdrew the existing rating appeals and expected the officers to alter the lists on their own initiative. Before the alterations were made, amended regulations came into force. They required the reductions to take effect from 1 April 1990 rather than 1 April 1992, thereby removing a transitional rating benefit.

Further proposals challenging the effective dates were dismissed by the valuation tribunals. The Lands Tribunal dismissed the ensuing appeals. National Car Parks appealed on points of law, contending that the officers had been obliged to alter the lists before the amendment, had delayed unlawfully and had created a legitimate expectation of the later effective date. The central issue was whether either officer acted unlawfully by failing to correct the list before 9 July 1994.

1. Appeal dismissed. The valuation officers had not breached their statutory duties and National Car Parks had no legitimate expectation that the alterations would be made before 9 July 1994 or otherwise than under the law applicable when they were made.

2. Section 41(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 imposed a continuing public duty to compile and maintain accurate rating lists. That duty had to be performed within Part III of the Act. Section 55 and the regulations made under it provided the foundation for specific rights concerning alterations and prescribed their effective dates. An oral agreement about value was evidence of the correct value. It did not bind the officer or create an individual right to alteration at a particular time.

3. The Act contained no express or necessarily implied requirement to alter the lists within a reasonable time. A contractual implication of performance within a reasonable time could not be transferred to statutory interpretation. Nevertheless, prolonged inaction could eventually breach the continuing statutory duty. Whether that point had been reached depended on all the circumstances.

4. Dyson LJ identified four relevant considerations: the duty’s subject matter and context; the length of the delay; the reasons for it; and actual or potential prejudice. Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power would almost certainly suffice to establish breach, but was not a necessary condition. Duties affecting life, bodily integrity or liberty ordinarily demanded greater expedition than duties affecting property or economic interests. Available resources might sometimes explain delay, depending on the nature and terms of the duty.

5. The delays were considerable, and one was unexplained. They nevertheless concerned economic interests, the ratepayer did not press for expedition, and the adverse regulatory amendment was unforeseen. Delay was not reasonably expected to cause significant prejudice. The officers consequently retained a fairly generous margin of time and neither delay amounted to breach.

6. The ratepayer had deliberately foregone the specific procedures associated with written agreement and appeal. It had no accrued right which the amended regulations could abrogate. Questions concerning retrospectivity and sections 16 and 23 of the Interpretation Act 1978 therefore did not arise. The alterations properly took effect from the date prescribed by the amended regulations.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the Lands Tribunal’s conclusion that the rating-list alterations took effect from 1 April 1990.

2. Lands Tribunal: The President dismissed National Car Parks Ltd’s appeals on 21 August 2003.

3. Valuation tribunals: The respective challenges to the effective dates of the alterations were dismissed in April and September 1996.