JJ Wilson (Ipswich) Ltd v Joanne Moore (Valuation Officer)

A second rating proposal is invalid where it concerns the same hereditament, ground and event as an earlier proposal, even if the form uses different wording. A proposal to “de-list” premises may amount to a proposal for deletion where the surrounding reasons show that the property is said not to be rateable.

A valuation officer’s failure to serve an invalidity notice does not, without more, indicate that a proposal was valid. Estoppel cannot prevent a public authority from performing statutory duties concerning the accuracy of a rating list. An appeal with no reasonable prospect of success may be struck out.

The appellant made two proposals concerning the same warehouse. The first sought deletion from the rating list with effect from the date the premises were vacated. The second sought that the property be shown as a new entry at “£De-listed” from the same date, relying on substantially the same alleged dereliction.

The first appeal was dismissed by the Valuation Tribunal for England because the property was not beyond economic repair. The second appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground that the second proposal was prohibited by regulation 4(3)(b)(i) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009. The Upper Tribunal considered the respondent’s application to strike out the appeal and the related arguments concerning invalidity, estoppel, res judicata and a late appeal against the first decision.

1. Invalidity of the second proposal. The second proposal was made on the same ground as the first. The descriptions of the proposed alteration and the detailed reasons were materially identical. “De-list” and “delete” conveyed the same substance: removal of the hereditament from the rating list. The proposal therefore fell within regulation 4(1)(h), or alternatively could not properly be brought under the other grounds advanced by the appellant. It was prohibited by regulation 4(3)(b)(i).
2. Failure to serve an invalidity notice. The failure to serve an invalidity notice under regulation 8(1) did not create a good indication of validity. The circumstances differed materially from Tuplin v Focus (DIY) Ltd [2009] UKUT 118 (LC), because an objective comparison of the proposals showed that they were fundamentally the same.
3. Estoppel. The principles of estoppel by convention described in Amalgamated Investments & Property Co Ltd (in liquidation) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84 did not assist. A valuation officer performing statutory functions to maintain an accurate rating list could not be estopped from addressing invalidity: Western Fish Products Limited v Penwith District Council [1981] 2 All ER 204; R (on the application of Reprotech (Pebsham) Limited) v East Sussex County Council [2002] UKHL 8. In any event, the conditional correspondence did not establish a sufficient common assumption or detrimental reliance.
4. Res judicata and late appeal. The VTE’s determination of the first proposal was sufficient for res judicata principles to be engaged when the second proposal, based on the same ground, was pursued. It was unnecessary to decide the issue because the second proposal was invalid. No special circumstances justified permission for an appeal against the first VTE decision more than two years out of time, applying the approach in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2014] AC 160.
5. The appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out under rule 8(3)(c) of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. Permission to appeal the first VTE decision was refused.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: The first appeal was dismissed on 8 January 2018. The second appeal was ultimately dismissed on 4 March 2020 because the second proposal was prohibited by regulation 4(3)(b)(i) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal against the second VTE decision was struck out under rule 8(3)(c) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. Permission to appeal the first VTE decision out of time was refused.