A&P68 Limited v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

For the purposes of sections 45(1) and 65(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, there is a single purposive test for identifying the owner of an unoccupied hereditament. The question is who has a real and practical entitlement to possession, including the ability to occupy the property or confer a right of occupation on another. The distinction between ordinary and unusual cases describes the degree of investigation required; it does not create separate legal tests. A company granted a legal right to possession solely to avoid non-domestic rates, without any real or practical ability to occupy or bring the property into occupation, is not the owner for rating purposes. The owner remains the person retaining that practical ability.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of District Judge Boyd of the West Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court. The Judge had made a liability order against A&P68 Limited for unpaid non-domestic rates relating to an unoccupied hereditament.

The appellant had granted a lease to Room for Faith Limited, which had granted a sub-lease to Local Faith Limited. The arrangements were intended to obtain a religious-worship exemption, but no certificate under section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 had been obtained. The Judge found that Local Faith Limited was not in rateable occupation and lacked a real and practical ability to occupy or confer occupation. The central issue was whether the ownership test under sections 45(1) and 65(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was single and purposive, or depended on categorising the case as ordinary or unusual.

1. Appeal dismissed. The liability order against A&P68 Limited was valid.
2. Under sections 45(1)(b) and 65(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the court must apply a single purposive test. The owner is the person entitled to possession in the real and practical sense. This includes the ability to occupy the hereditament or confer occupation on another. The references in Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd to ordinary and unusual cases identify when further factual investigation may be needed; they do not establish two separate tests.
3. The purpose of liability for rates on unoccupied property is relevant to construction. It is directed at the person able, in the real world, to bring the property back into use. A legal right created solely for rates avoidance does not satisfy the statutory description where the grantee lacks that practical ability.
4. The Judge was entitled to find that Local Faith Limited had no business activity connected with the sub-lease and no real or practical entitlement to possession. The appellant remained the owner for the purposes of sections 45(1) and 65(1).
5. The alternative submission that Room for Faith Limited was the owner had not been advanced below, required fresh evidence, and was raised too late. The Judge’s findings and application of the correct test were therefore upheld.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed.
• West Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court: On 5 September 2024, District Judge Boyd upheld the Council’s complaint and made a liability order against the appellant for unpaid non-domestic rates. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.