Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE SALMON
Judgment Date11 May 1966
Judgment citation (vLex)[1966] EWCA Civ J0511-1
Date11 May 1966
CourtCourt of Appeal

[1966] EWCA Civ J0511-1

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

From the Lands Tribunal

Before:

The Master of the Rolls

(Lord Denning)

Lord Justice Danckwerts and

Lord Justice Salmon

Field Place Caravan Park Ltd. & ors
Appellants Appellants
and
Dudley Fitzroy Harding (Valuation Officer)
Respondent Respondent

MR. M. J. ALBERY, Q.C and MR. J. BARMAN (instructed by Messrs Baileys, Shaw & Gillet, Agents for Messrs Tozers, Dawlish, Devon) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.

MR. J RAYMOND PHILLIPS (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
1

We are here concerned with the rating of residential caravans. In recent years caravan sites have developed greatly. There are two kinds of residential caravans: First, those in which people live permanently. The same family occupies the caravan all through the year. Second, those which people use for holidays and weekends. The same families use it year after year. The question is whether such caravans are ratable. I put on one side any caravans which have been on a site for less than a year. They may be too transient to attract ate ability. The seven cases with which we are concerned are all cases where caravans were there in 1962 at the time of the provisional list. They had been there for over a year. By now they have been there for several years.

2

A typical case is No. 6 Field Place Caravan Park, which is at New Milton. The care an in question was a four-berth caravan 21 ft, by 7 ft. 3 ins. It was placed on a pitch which was 55 ft. by 31 ft. The occupier of the caravan put up a chestnut-paling fence round the pitch with a wicket gate leading into it. He mowed the grass and kept the place tidy. The caravan was on a gravel standing with a concrete path leading up to it. It was connected with the electricity by a switch which could be easily disconnected, and it was also connected up with a soak away system by a pipe which could be screwed on and off. It bad a couple of outbuildings, small huts or store sheds. It still bad its wheels on. It was jacked up, in this sense, that it had stays on the caravan who would keep it stable. It had not been moved to or from the pitch for quite a long time. But there was evidence that it was mobile, in this sense, that in case of emergency, for instance in the case of fire sweeping through the site, it could be towed away within ten minutes or perhaps half an hour.

3

The first question is whether the caravan, together with the whole of its pitch, is a ratable hereditament. Mr. Albery, who appears for the site operators and also for the caravan dwellers says that the pitch is ratable, but that the combined thing, the caravan plus the pitch, is not a ratable hereditament. He takes his stand on the point that an occupier is ratable in respect of land. He is not ratable in respect of chatte?.s: not even in respect of a chattel which is on the land. This caravan, he says, was in point of law a chattel.

4

At one time that argument might have been held acceptable. In one of the early cases, Watkins v. The Overseers of Milton-inject-Graves end, Law Reports, 3 Queen's Bench, p. 350 at p. 355, Mr. Justice Blackburn seemed to think it obvious that a hulk fastened to moorings in the river could not be ratable, because it was a chattel. In one of the latest cases, Bradshaw v. Davey 1952, 1 All England Reports, p. 350, Lord Goddard seemed to think that the mooring in that case was not rateable because it was a chattel and not a fixture.

5

Whatever the cases may have said in the past, I think that the law on this subject has been revolutionised or, perhaps I ought to say, made clear, by the decision of the House of Lords in London County Council v. Wilkins, 1957 Appeal Cases, p. 362, The House considered at length whether a chattel which was placed on land could be a ratable hereditament. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, said at p. 372: "In my view a chattel to be ratable must be enjoyed with the land on which it rests". Lord Radcliffe said at p. 378: "A structure placed upon another person's land can with it forms a ratable hereditament, even though the structure remains in law a chattel and as such the property of the person who placed it there". Lord Orkney agreed.

6

Mr. Albery urged us to bold that Lord Radcliffe was wrong. I am not prepared to do sc. If I may respectfully say so, I think be was right. The correct proposition today is that, although a chattel is not a ratable hereditament by itself nevertheless it may become ratable together with lend, if it is placed on a piece of lend and enjoyed with it in such circumstances and with such a degree of permanence that the chattel with the land can together be regarded as one unit of occupation. This is illustrated by three recent cases: The bookstalls at Victoria Station in the Southern Railway case in 1936 Appeal Oases, p. 511; the contractor's hut in Wilkins case, 1957 Appeal Oases, p. 362; and the spoil-heap in Ryan Industrial Fuels ltd. v. Morgan, 1965, 1 Weekly Law Reports, p. 1348.

7

The second question is whether in this case the caravan is so enjoyed with the pitch that the two together can be regarded as one unit of occupation. Mr. Albery urged us to hold that these were two separate units of occupation, namely, the caravan occupied by the caravan dweller, and the pitch by the site operator. I cannot accept this view. You have only to look at the whole cartilage with its fence, its mown grass, sometimes its garden, all appurtenant to the caravan, and you realise it is all one unit occupied for dwelling purposes by the owner of the caravan with his family. It is clearly one unit of occupation, capable of being one ratable hereditament.

8

Thirdly, Mr. Albery said that, even if it is one ratable hereditament, there are competing occupations, and that the person in paramount occupation is the site operator for Albery likened this case to the case of the lodger, it has always been held that the owner of the house who takes in lodgers is himself ratable and the lodgers are not. He likened it also to residential houses such as were considered in the S.S.A.F.F.A. case in 1966, 1 Weekly Law Reports, p. 736. In that case S.S.A.F.F.A., a charity, had a building consisting of flats. The widows and daughters of deceased members of the Forces were allowed to occupy these flats at a nominal rent. It was held that the charity was the occupier of the whole building and was ratable. The ladies were not ratable. Mr. Albery urged us to hold that this case was a parallel. The site operators exercised much control over the caravan dwellers. They controlled the access to and from the site. They could go and look underneath the caravans to see if they were tidy. They could go and see that the rubbish was cleared away, and they could, if need be, cut the grass. They were, indeed, required by the local authority to exercise strict control to keep the site clean and in good order.

9

This is a question of fact and degree for the tribunal of first instance. It is to be decided in accordance with Lord Russell's words in the Southern Railway case, 1936 Cases, at p. 532, where he said: "The effect of the alleged control upon the question of ratable occupation must depend upon. the facts in every case; and in my opinion in each case the degree of control must be examined, and the examination must be directed to the extent to which its exercise would interfere with the enjoyment by the occupant of the premises in his possession for the purposes for which he occupies them, or would be inconsistent with his enjoyment of them to the substantial exclusion of all other persons". Applying these words here, each of the caravan dwellers enjoys his caravan, and also the pitch round it, as his dwelling. The site operators exercise a good deal of control, but not such as to interfere with the enjoyment by the caravan dweller, or to be inconsistent with his exclusive use. The situation is parallel to the coal store and stackingbays at Buckingham Junction which were considered in the Southern Railway case, 1936 Appeal Cases, p. 511. The Company had by clause 3 reserved to themselves free entrance and access to the premises for all purposes at all times, see pp. 517. 548. Lord Wright (at p. 567) said: "The agreement has to be read as a whole, and clause 3 must be construed so as not altogether to destroy the grant. I construe Clause 3 as giving right of access not inconsistent with exclusive occupation as that term is understood in rating law:". In the present case the President of the Lands Tribunal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Rudd (Valuation Officer) v Cinderella Rockerfellas Ltd (Tuxedo Royale)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 April 2003
    ...The Lands Tribunal resolved the issue whether the vessel was rateable by applying the principle stated by Lord Denning MR in Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding [1966] 2 QB 484 in which, basing himself upon London County Council v Wilkins (Valuation Officer) [1957] AC 362, Lord Denning s......
  • Woodbury v Yard Arm Club Ltd; sub nom Westminster City Council v Woodbury
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
  • Stevens v Bromley London Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 December 1971
    ...Mr. Wicks was in occupation and in respect of which he was therefore liable to pay rates, Field Place Caravan Park Ltd. v. Harding (1966) 2 Q. B. 484. This last factor may not be of much importance but it would, at any rate, be odd if Mr. Wicks enjoyed a sufficient degree of occupation to m......
  • Decision Nº RA 378 1996. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 18-02-2000
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
    • 18 February 2000
    ...London WC2A 1JR on 14 and 15 February 2000 The following cases are referred to in this decision: Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding [1966] 2 QB 484 Thomas (VO) v Witney Aquatic Co Ltd [1972] RA 493 Woodbury (VO) v Yard Arm Club Ltd [1989] RA 381 Floatels (UK) Ltd v Perrin (VO) [1995] RA......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT