Graylaw Investments Ltd v Ipswich Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE CUMMING-BRUCE |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1978 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1978] EWCA Civ J0626-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 June 1978 |
[1978] EWCA Civ J0626-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the Ipswich County Court
Lord Justice Stephenson
Lord Justice Waller
Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
MR. R. A. W. SEARS, Q.C., MR. I. L. OROXPORD and MR. T. DAVEY (instructed by The Solicitor, Ipswich Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. G. R. G. ROOTS (instructed by Messrs. Radcliffes & Company) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
I will ask Lord Justice Waller to deliver the first judgment.
This appeal relates to a new office building of high quality in Ipswich. Planning permission was granted for that building on 30th January 1973. Work was started in September 1973. The building was structurally completed in late 1975 and finished as at the date of the hearing before the county court judge on 25th March 1976- That was the date on which the letting agents wrote to the Ipswich Borough Council saying that the building was finished to a high standard and, in effect, offering it to the Borough Council as possible tenants.
We have before us pictures of the building - a large modern building with very considerable floor area. One part of the building has been let, but at the date of the hearing before the county court judge, by far the greatest part of the building still remained unlet.
On 7th March of last year the local authority served upon the owners of the building, the respondents before this court, a completion notice, but gave roughly seven and a half weeks for the notice to take effect. The notice read: "(1) You are the person entitled to possession of the building newly/now being erected at: CROWN STREET, IPSWICH (comprising the ground floor, 1st floor, second floor, 3rd floor and the eastern wing of the 4th floor) in the Borough of Ipswich. (2) The Council … being the Rating Authority for the said Borough is of the opinion that: (a) the work remaining to be done on the said building is such that the erection thereof can reasonably be expected to be completed within three months; and (b) the building when completed will be comprised in 'a relevant hereditament' for the purposes of the General Rate Act 1967". The notice is dated 7th March 1977 and it finished: "NOW THE COUNCIL HEREBY GIVES YOU NOTICE that the erection of thesaid building is to be treated for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1967 as completed on 30th April 1977".
The respondents, Graylaw Investments Limited, appealed as they were entitled to do to the county court judge and the case was heard on 12th July 1977, when Judge Stinson allowed the appeal and gave the owners of the building six months from 7th March 1977, the date of the notice, making it 7th September 1977.
By the General Rate Act 1967 local authorities were given an optional power to rate the owners of unoccupied hereditaments after being unoccupied for a continuous period of three months. By a resolution passed in January 1975 the Ipswich Borough Council resolved that the provisions of Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act, giving such power, should apply to its area, so that from the time of the passage of that resolution it became possible for the local authority to rate the owner of an unoccupied building, provided they complied with the provisions of Schedule 1 to that Act.
I must read certain of the provisions of Schedule 1. Paragraph 1(1) says: "Where, in the case of any rating area in which, by virtue of a resolution under section 17 of this Act, this Schedule is in operation, any relevant hereditament in that area … (a) is unoccupied for a continuous period exceeding three months, the owner shall, subject co the provisions of this Schedule, be rated in respect of that hereditament for any relevant period of vacancy; and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the hereditament were occupied during that relevant period of vacancy by the owner".
Under the heading, "Completion of newly erected or altered buildings", Paragraph 7 reads: "For the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Schedule, a newly erected building which is not occupied on the date determined under the subsequent provisions of this Schedule as the date on which the erection of the building is completed shall bedeemed to become unoccupied on that date".
I hope it is a fair paraphrase to say that, if the provisions of the schedule are complied with, the building shall be deemed to become unoccupied on that date - that is the date on which the erection of the building is completed.
Paragraph 8(1)(b) reads: "Where a rating authority are of opinion - (b) that the work remaining to be done on a building within their area is such that the erection of the building can reasonably be expected to be completed within three months, and that the building is, or when completed will be, comprised in a relevant hereditament, the authority may serve on the owner of the building a notice (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as a completion notice') stating that the erection of the building is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as completed on the date of service of the notice or on such later date as may be specified by the notice".
By (5) of that same Paragraph 8: "If a completion notice served in respect of a building is not withdrawn and no appeal in pursuance of sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph is brought against the notice or such an appeal is abandoned or dismissed, the erection of the building shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as completed on the date specified by the notice; and if the notice is not withdrawn and such an appeal is brought and is not abandoned or dismissed, the erection of the building shall be treated for those purposes as completed on such date as the court shall determine".
Finally, I read Paragraph 9 of the schedule, which is the important paragraph which we have to consider in this case; "In the case of a building to which work remains to be done of a kind which is customarily done to a building of the type in question after the erection of the building has been substantially completed, it shallbe assumed for the purposes of paragraph 8 of this Schedule that the erection of the building has been or can reasonably be expected to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial