Camden London Borough Council v Post Office
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE LAWTON,LORD JUSTICE BRIDGE |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] EWCA Civ J0420-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | 1974 C No. 10455 |
[1977] EWCA Civ J0420-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the High Court Of Justice Queen's Beach Division
(Mr. Justice Thompson)
The Master of The Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Lawton and
Lord Justice Bridge
MR. G.E. MORIARTY Q.C. and MR. G.R.G. ROOTS (instructed by Mr. B.H Wilson, The Solicitor; appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Appellants).
MR. G.W. SEWARD (instructed by Mr. Saul Rothstein- The Solicitor to the Post Office) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Respondent).
This case concerns the rating of Euston Tower. It is at present London's tallest office building. It is 400 feet high with 36 storeys, of which 34 floors are offices and the ground floor is shops. The owners are an Investment Company called Balgray Investments Limited. But they have let 34 floors on a long lease to the Department of the Environment for 4-9 years, who in turn have sub-let the top 14 floors to the Post Office. The Department of the Environment do not pay any rates because they are the Crown, but they make a contribution to the local authority in lieu of rates. The Post Office are not the Crown and are liable to pay rates. In consequence the 14 floors sub-let to the Post Office appear in the valuation list as a separate hereditament on their own. The 20 floors occupied by the Department of the Environment do not appear at all. The Post Office have duly paid all the rates on their separate hereditament of 14 floors ever since they began to occupy those floors on 12th September, 1971. No question arises on that score. The only question today is about the previous nine months, from 11th December, 1970, to 11th September, 1971, when the fourteen floors were empty and unoccupied. During those nine months the Post Office were the sub-lessees entitled to possession of the fourteen floors but they left them empty. The rating authority - the London Borough of Camden - claim that the Post Office should pay half-rates for those nine months empty. But the Post Office say they are not liable to pay any rates at all for that time.
For nearly four centuries it was a cardinal principle of rating law that rates were payable only on premises that were occupied and not on unoccupied or "empty" premises. But in 1967 the rating authority were authorised to impose half-rates on empty premises - for every period in excess of three months duringwhich they remained empty. The London Borough of Camden passed the necessary resolution to impose half-rates on empty properties But the Statute contained special provisions in regard to newly-erected buildings. New buildings were liable to the "empty" rate from the date when they were completed or rather after three months from the date of completion. But the Statute contained provision for a "deemed" date of completion. It was realised that a building owner might try to avoid rates by delaying to complete his new building in some minor respect. To circumvent any such attempt, the rating authority wore authorised to give a "completion notice" in advance before the building was completed -when there was only a few weeks more work needed. This was a three months notice: and then at the end of the three months, the building was "deemed" to be completed, even though some work was still left undone.
This introduction enables me to state the point in this case. The rating authority gave a completion notice to the owner in respect of the whole building," the 34 floors, except the ground-floor shops. But when the valuation list was afterwards prepared, the only hereditament that it contained was the part of the building sub-let to the Post Office, that is, the 14 floors at the top of the building. The Post Office say that because the two were not identical - that is, because the completion notice was for the whole, and the valuation list was for the part, they are not liable to pay the empty-property rate. The Post Office admit that if they had taken a sub-lease of the whole - and the valuation list was for the whole - they would have been liable to pay the empty-property rate. But, because they only took a sub-lease of the part, they are not liable at all.
It is to be noticed that the new entries in the valuation list are only made some months - or it may be a year or two afterafter the building is completed - so as to apply to the hereditaments in the new building. It will then contain all the various hereditaments which the new building contains. One hereditament may be of one floor, another of ten floors, or fourteen floors: or there may be a single hereditament of all 34 floors. It all depends on how the new building is laid out - which only takes place after completion. Once the new entries are made in the valuation list with the new hereditaments, they relate back to the beginning of the rating period and cover all the time subsequent to the "deemed" date of completion. With that introduction, I turn to the details of this case.
When Euston Tower was being built, the London Borough of Camden, as the rating authority, served a completion notice on the owners, Balgray Investments Limited. It was dated 21st November, 1969 and was in these terms:- "Completion of newly erected or altered buildings. Re 286 Euston Road (Euston Centre - 36-storey Tower Block). The Council is of the opinion that the work remaining to be done on the abovementioned building is such that the erection of, the building can reasonably be expected to be completed within three months and that, when so completed, it will be a hereditament liable for unoccupied property rate in accordance with Section 17 and Schedule 1 of the General Rate Act 1967, and the Council's Resolution made under the said Section 17. Notice is hereby given to the effect that the erection of the building is to be treated for the purposes of Schedule 1 of the General Rate Act, 1967, as completed on 20th February, 1970".
The owners disputed the proposed date of completion. But there were negotiations which led to an agreement that the "deemed" date for completion should be 11th September, 1970, In a letter of 26th January, 1970: "… the Council agrees that the whole of Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road, N.W.I.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial