Decision Nº LC-2018-302. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 14-02-2023 , [2023] UKUT 36 (LC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Peter McCrea FRICSMr Justice Edwin Johnson, President |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] UKUT 36 (LC) |
| Date | 14 February 2023 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | LC-2018-302 |
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)
UT Neutral citation number: [2023] UKUT 36 (LC) UTLC Case Number: LC-2018-000302
Location: Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings,
Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
RATING – HEREDITAMENT – office building occupied by ‘property guardians’ while
awaiting redevelopment – ‘reality principle’ at Material Day – mode and category of occupation
– appeal dismissed
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR
ENGLAND
BETWEEN:
LUDGATE HOUSE LIMITED Appellant
-and-
(1) ANDREW RICKETTS (VALUATION OFFICER)
(2) LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
Respondents
Re: Ludgate House,
245 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NW
Mr Justice Edwin Johnson, The President and Mr PD McCrea FRICS FCIArb
Rolls Building
Heard on: 13-14 December 2022
Decision Date: 14 February 2023
David Forsdick KC and Luke Wilcox for the Appellant
Mark Westmoreland Smith for the First Respondent
Faisel Sadiq for the Second Respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
2
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Ludgate House Limited v Ricketts & L B Southwark [2019] UKUT 0278 (LC)
LB Southwark v Ludgate House Limited & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1637
SJ&J Monk v Newbigin [2017] UKSC 14 [2017] 1 WLR 851
RF Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish & Newcastle Retail Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 185
Fir Mill v Royton UDC (1960) R.R.C. 171
Global 100 Ltd v Jimenez [2022] UKUT 50 (LC) [2022] HLR 25
Global 100 Ltd v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835
Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield CC [2013] EWHC 45 (Admin)
Hewitt v Telereal Trillium Ltd [2019] UKSC 23 [2019] 1 WLR 3262
Lamb & Shirley Ltd v Bliss [2001] EWCA Civ 562.
Holland v Ong [1958] 1 QB 425
BMC Properties and Management Ltd v Jackson (VO) [2014] UKUT 0093 (LC)
Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [1944] KB 718
JA Pye v United Kingdom (2008) 46 E.H.R.R. 45
Air Canada v United Kingdom (1995) 20 E.H.R.R. 1
Jahn v Germany (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 49.
Radchikov v Russia [2007] ECHR 65582/01
Gladysheva v Russia [2011] ECHR 7079/10
Gashi v Croatia [2007] ECHR 32457/05
Tunaitis v Lithuania [2015] 4297/08
R (Huitson) v HMRC [2011] EWCA Civ 893
R (Huitson) v HMRC [2010] EWHC 97 (Admin)
Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd [2021] UKSC 16 [2022] AC 690
3
Introduction
1. This is the further hearing of an appeal against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for
England (Ms Fiona Dickie, Vice President). By the relevant part of her decision (“the VTE
Decision”) the Vice President dismissed certain appeals of the ratepayer, Ludgate House
Limited (“LHL”), against the refusal of the Valuation Officer to act on two proposals made
by LHL for the alteration of the 2010 non-domestic rating list in relation to a building known
as Ludgate House. LHL has appealed against the relevant part of the decision.
2. The appeal of LHL to this Tribunal (“the UT Appeal”) was previously heard and
determined by this Tribunal (Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President, and Mr
McCrea FRICS) by a decision dated 18th September 2019. We will refer to this first
decision, to which we shall be making extensive reference in this decision and which has the
neutral citation number [2019] UKUT 278 (LC), as “the First UT Decision”.
3. The First UT Decision was the subject of an appeal by the London Borough of Southwark
(“Southwark”) to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal handed down their decision
on 4th December 2020. We will refer to the Court of Appeal decision, which has the neutral
citation number [2020] EWCA Civ 1637, as “the CA Decision”. The Court of Appeal
decided to allow the appeal. The consequence of allowing the appeal was that further issues
arose for determination in the UT Appeal, which it had not been necessary to determine in
the First UT Decision. In the result, and by an order made on 4th December 2020 the Court
of Appeal allowed the appeal of Southwark and remitted the UT Appeal to this Tribunal for
determination of these further issues. Thus it is that the UT Appeal has returned to us for
this further hearing.
4. The UT Appeal concerns a former office building known as Ludgate House (“the
Building”). By way of general introduction to what the UT Appeal is about, it is convenient
to repeat the opening paragraphs of the First UT Decision.
5. Until its demolition in 2018 the Building was an office building of 173,633 sq ft at the
southern end of Blackfriars Bridge in the London Borough of Southwark. Built in 1988 and
formerly the home of Express Newspapers, its last tenants vacated the Building in March
2015. Between 1 July 2015 and May 2017, it was occupied by a number of licensees under
arrangements made between the owner of the Building, LHL, and a property services
company called VPS (UK) Ltd, (“VPS”) which specialises in the supply of so-called
property guardians.
6. A property guardian is a private individual who, usually with others, occupies vacant
premises as their residence under a temporary contractual licence until the building owner
requires it for redevelopment. The arrangement provides the guardian with accommodation
at a lower cost than in the conventional residential letting market, it provides the supplier
with a fee for making the arrangements, and it provides the building owner with some
protection against squatters and, more significantly, with the prospect of mitigating liability
for non-domestic rates.
To continue reading
Request your trial