Addis Ltd v Clement
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Elwyn-Jones,Lord Brandon of Oakbrook,Lord Oliver of Aylmerton,Lord Goff of Chieveley |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1988 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1988] UKHL J0211-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 11 February 1988 |
[1988] UKHL J0211-2
House of Lords
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Elwyn-Jones
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Lord Goff of Chieveley
My Lords,
The issue in this appeal concerns the proper interpretation of section 20 of the General Rate Act 1967. That section, so far as material, provides:
"20(1) For the purposes of any alteration of a valuation list to be made under Part V of this Act in respect of a hereditament in pursuance of a proposal, the value or altered value to be ascribed to the hereditament under Section 19 of this Act shall not exceed the value which would have been ascribed thereto in that list if the hereditament had been subsisting throughout the year before that in which the valuation list came into force, on the assumptions that at the time by reference to which that value would have been ascertained: (a) the hereditament was in the same state as at the time of the valuation and any relevant factors (as defined by subsection (2) of this section) were those subsisting at the last-mentioned time; and (b) the locality in which the hereditament is situated was in the same state, so far as concerns the other premises situated in that locality and the occupation and use of those premises, the transport services and other facilities available in the locality, and other matters affecting the amenities of the locality, as at the time of valuation.
(2) In this section, the expression 'relevant factors' means any of the following, so far as material to the valuation of a hereditament, namely (a) the mode or category of occupation of the hereditament (b) the quantity of minerals or other substances in or extracted from the hereditament or (c) in the case of a public house, the volume of trade or business carried on at the hereditament; and in paragraph (c) of this subsection the expression 'public house' means a hereditament which consists of or comprises premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises where the sale of such liquor is, or is apart from any other trade or business ancillary or incidental to it, the only trade or business carried on at the hereditament.
(3) References in this section to the time of valuation are references to the time by reference to which the valuation of a hereditament would have fallen to be ascertained if this section had not been enacted. …"
This section has been amended from time to time since its original enactment, but none of the amendments is relevant for present purposes.
The hereditament which is the subject of the appeal is a factory occupied by the appellants and situated near Swansea in South Wales. It lies just under a mile to the south of an area of land which by Order dated 18 May 1981 the Secretary of State for Wales, under powers contained in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, designated as the Lower Swansea Valley Enterprise Zone Designation Order 1981 ( SI 1981/757) came into effect on 11 June 1981. The nature of an enterprise zone is thus described in the decision of the Lands Tribunal 1984 RA 137, 139-140:
"The Government's purpose in setting up Enterprise Zones is to encourage industrial and commercial activity in run-down areas by the removal of certain tax burdens and by the relaxation or speeding up of the application of certain statutory and administrative controls. The benefits conferred on enterprises operating within an Enterprise Zone run for a period of ten years from the date when the zone comes into effect and cover both new and existing industrial enterprises within the zone. The available benefits are as follows: (1) Exemption from development land tax; (2) Exemption from rates on industrial and commercial property; (3) 100% allowances for corporation and income tax purposes for capital expenditure on industrial and commercial buildings; (4) Applications for certain customs facilities from firms within the zones are processed as a matter of priority and certain criteria are relaxed; (5) Industrial development certificates are not needed; (6) Employers are exempt from industrial training levies and from the requirement to supply information to industrial training boards; (7) A greatly simplified planning regime; developments that conform with the published scheme in each zone will not require individual planning permission; (8) Those controls remaining in force are to be administered more speedily; (9) Government requests for statistical information are reduced."
It is agreed between the parties that one result of the setting up of the Lower Swansea Valley Enterprise Zone has been to depress the rental values of commercial and industrial premises situated outside but in the near neighbourhood of the designated area. This is because it is substantially more attractive to operate such concerns inside that area. The parties are also agreed that the appropriate rateable value of the appellant ratepayers' factory is £36,500 if the consequences of the enterprise zone are taken into account, and £45,500...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...30 LJMC 89 Rozel Motor Co Ltd v Clark [1983] RA 70 Edmondson (VO) v Teesside Textiles Ltd (1985) 83 LGR 317 Clement (VO) v Addis Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 301 Hoare (VO) v National Trust [1998] RA 391 Black v Oliver [1978] 1 QB 870 Jones v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (1865) 11 HL Cas 443 Kingston......
-
Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd and Another
...state or enjoyment of property in para 2(7)(a) and (d) represent a statutory reversal of the decision of the House of Lords in Addis Ltd v Clement [1988] 1 WLR 301, a decision on s.20 of the 1967 Act. The ratepayers' submission, which the Lands Tribunal substantially accepted, is that the r......
-
Chilton-Merryweather (Listing Officer) v Hunt
...1967 Act was considered by this court and the House of Lords in Addis Ltd v. Clement (VO) [1987] RA 1 (CA) and Clement (VO) v. Addis Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 301 (HL). The issue was whether for the purposes of a valuation under section 20 the effect on value of a nearby enterprise zone should be ta......
-
VA88.0.101 – Irish Management Institute (1)
...be rated. He referred to the rebus sic stantibus Rule. As was pointed out in the House of Lords decision: Clement v Addis Ltd that is (1988) 1 all E.R. 593 at p. 596 there is no readily perceptible reason for limiting the application of this rule and that the word "state" should be given a ......