Pall Mall Investments v London Borough of Camden

In proceedings for a business-rates liability order, once the rating authority establishes that the rate was duly made and demanded and remains unpaid, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to show sufficient cause for non-payment. Where non-occupation is relied upon, the respondent must provide evidence sufficient to establish that defence on the balance of probabilities. A document described as a lease does not automatically discharge that burden. Its evidential weight is for the tribunal, having regard to its contents and the surrounding evidence, or the absence of supporting evidence. A presumption concerning formally signed agreements and sham arrangements cannot convert an unsupported and questionable document into sufficient evidence.

Pall Mall Investments owned vacant premises in Hatton Garden. Camden sought a liability order for unpaid business rates for the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2011. Pall Mall relied on a one-page document headed “Lease”, said to transfer the right to occupy the premises to Lonia Limited.

The magistrates’ court admitted the document but heard no evidence from Pall Mall and was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the lease was genuine. It made a liability order for £34,710.29. Pall Mall appealed by way of case stated, arguing that production of the document discharged its evidential burden and required Camden to disprove its authenticity.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellants were ordered to pay Camden’s costs, summarily assessed at £2,800.
2. Under regulation 12(2) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989, once the authority establishes that the rate was duly made and published, duly demanded, and unpaid, the burden falls on the respondent to show sufficient cause for non-payment.
3. That burden is an evidential burden which may swing or shift as evidence develops, but the ultimate standard is the balance of probabilities. In a non-occupation case, the respondent must show that it was not in rateable occupation. The principles stated in Ratford v Northaven District Council [1987] 1 QB 357 were applied, with the earlier authorities of Des Salles d’Epinoix v Kensington and Chelsea (Royal) London Borough Council [1970] 1 WLR 179 and Forsyth v Rawlinson [1981] RVR 97 reflected in that analysis.
4. The production of a document headed “Lease” did not necessarily swing the evidential burden back to Camden. The district judge was entitled to assess the document’s weight. The document was undated, bore illegible signatures, contained little detail characteristic of a commercial lease, and was unsupported by any written or oral evidence concerning its execution or intended legal effect.
5. The observations in National Westminster Bank plc v Rosemary Doreen Jones [2001] 1 BCLC 98 concerning the presumption against finding a formally signed agreement to be a sham arose in a materially different evidential context. They did not require the district judge to give significant weight to the unsupported document.
6. The reasoning in Westminster City Council v Tomlin [1990] 1 All ER 920 was consistent with the approach that non-occupation is ordinarily a matter particularly within the respondent’s knowledge.

The judgment does not identify a prior reported appellate decision in the same proceedings. Pall Mall Investments appealed to the High Court by way of case stated from a liability order made by District Judge James Henderson at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on 31 May 2011.