The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v 48th Street Holdings Limited & Anor

For non-domestic rating purposes, the temporary placement of items in otherwise empty premises is not occupation where its sole aim is to create a reset period for empty-property relief. The activity must have utility, value or benefit independent of the rate-saving which depends circularly on its being accepted as occupation.

The Ramsay purposive approach applies to rating legislation. The statutory scheme is directed to deterring owners from keeping property empty and encouraging real occupation. Later amendments or consultation material cannot determine the meaning of earlier provisions unless a genuine ambiguity has been fixed by the later legislation.

The City of London sought unpaid non-domestic rates from 48th Street Holdings Ltd and declarations against it and Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd. The respondents used a rate-mitigation scheme under which boxes with redundant contents were placed in vacant office premises for six weeks, after which they were removed and a further three-month empty-property exemption was claimed.

The High Court dismissed the claim, following R (Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd) v Trafford Council [2018] EWHC 1687 (Admin). The City appealed, contending that the scheme did not create rateable occupation when the boxes served no purpose other than securing rate mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court held that the scheme did not create occupation for the purposes of section 45(1) and section 65(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and regulations 4(a), 4(b) and 5 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008. The Court overruled R (Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd) v Trafford Council [2018] EWHC 1687 (Admin).

2. The common-law rules governing occupation must be applied consistently with the statutory scheme and the purposive approach explained in Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd [2021] UKSC 16. A scheme undertaken solely to avoid rates may fall outside the statutory description even where its component legal arrangements are genuine.

3. The third Laing ingredient requires occupation to confer some use, value or benefit upon the occupier. Storing items can satisfy that requirement where the occupier wishes to retain them, even if others regard them as worthless. But a temporary placement whose only asserted benefit is the future rate saving does not. Its supposed benefit depends on the circular proposition that the activity is already occupation for the statutory scheme.

4. This conclusion did not introduce an impermissible motive test. The respondents themselves relied on the rate-saving motive as the only alleged source of benefit. A contractual reward shared with the putative occupier did not supply an independent use or value.

5. The 2024 amendment extending the reset period could not guide the construction of the earlier 2008 Regulations. Later legislation may exceptionally resolve a genuine ambiguity, but there was none here. The Court left open the treatment of other arrangements involving a real independent use of premises.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the City of London’s appeal and overruled R (Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd) v Trafford Council [2018] EWHC 1687 (Admin) .
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Charles Bagot KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, dismissed the claims: [2026] EWHC 1130 (KB).