K Shoe Shops Ltd v Hardy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Scarman,Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Templeman |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] UKHL J1103-2 |
| Date | 03 November 1983 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1983] UKHL J1103-2
House of Lords
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Scarman
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Templeman
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman, and I agree with it. For the reasons given by him I would dismiss these appeals.
My Lords,
I agree that for the reasons set out in the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman, these appeals should be dismissed.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman. I agree with it and for the reasons he gives I would dismiss the appeals. I also concur in the order my noble and learned friend proposes in respect of costs.
My Lords,
For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman, I too would dismiss these appeals.
My Lords,
These appeals call for the determination of a question of construction which arises under the General Rate Act 1967. The appellants are ratepayers of shop premises at Regent Street in Westminster. The first respondent is the Valuation Officer and the second respondents are the rating authority for Westminster. The question is whether the appellants' premises should be valued as at late 1970 as the appellants contend or whether they should be valued as at 1st April 1973 as the respondents maintain and as the Court of Appeal held for the purposes of the rating valuation list which came into force on the 1st April 1973.
The General Rate Act 1967 received the Royal Assent on the 22nd March 1967 and has since been amended, but the amendments are not relevant to the present question. Section 1(1) of the Act establishes rating areas and rating authorities corresponding to borough and district areas and authorities. By section 1(2):
"Every rating authority shall have power in accordance with this Act to make and levy rates on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property in their rating area …"
By section 2(4):
"… The general rate for any rating area … (b) shall be made and levied in accordance with the valuation list in force for the time being …"
Sections 12 to 15 enable county councils and the Greater London Council and certain other authorities to issue precepts requiring the rating authorities within their jurisdiction to. levy rates for the purposes of the precepting authorities.
By section 19 the rateable value of a hereditament shall be based on:
"The rent at which it is estimated the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year"
on certain specified assumptions as to the burden of the usual covenants entered into between landlord and tenant.
Section 68(1) provides that:
"In the case of each rating area, new valuation lists shall be prepared and made by the valuation officer so as to come into force on 1st April in 1973 and each fifth year thereafter."
A valuation officer as defined by section 115(1) means any officer of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue appointed by the Commissioners in relation to each valuation list.
Section 68(2) requires that the valuation officer:
"… shall, not later than the end of the month of December preceding the date on which the list is to come into force (or if in any particular case the Minister, either before or after the end of that month allows an extended period, then not later than the end of that period) sign the 'list and transmit it … to the rating authority …"
The Act thus provides for a quinquennial valuation which will bring all rateable values up to date when each new list comes into force and which will last for the next five years. The Act does not require the valuation officer to begin to make his estimates of rateable value on any particular date. The date fixed for the completion of his task, the 31st December, may be extended by the Minister. But the task of every valuation officer is the same and every valuation list must come into force on the same day. Consistently with the principles of uniformity and fairness which are applicable to rating valuations, each valuation officer must value each property by reference to the same date. It is not conceivable that Parliament intended that, for example, the valuation officer of Westminster should value some premises in his area on the assumption of an annual tenancy granted and commencing at the end of 1970 but should value other premises in his area on the assumption of an annual tenancy granted and commencing on the 31st December 1972 or the 1st April 1973. Nor is it conceivable that Parliament intended that premises in different rating areas in the same or different precept areas could be valued by reference to different dates. The only fixed and immutable date provided by the Act is the relevant quinquennial 1st April, in the present case the 1st April 1973, and the Act directs that each valuation officer shall prepare and make a new list "so as to come into force on 1st April in 1973". In the words of Sir Patrick Browne delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the instant case, "uniformity and fairness as between all rating areas can only be achieved if all rating areas are valued by reference to the same date, and the only possible common date is … the date when the valuation list comes into force – in this case 1st April 1973." Similar views were expressed, albeit by obiter dicta, by Lord Denning M.R. in Reg, v. Paddington Valuation Officer ex parte Peachey Property Corporation Ltd. [1966] 1 Q.B. 380 at 405 where, dealing with the statutory predecessor of the 1967 Act, Lord Denning said that the valuation was "to be based on current values so as to reflect, as far as possible, the values prevailing at the time when the list was to take effect." In my opinion the 1967 Act requires the rateable value of each of the appellants' hereditaments, as entered in the 1973 valuation list to be based on an estimate of the rent which the landlord of that hereditament could reasonably expect to negotiate on the 1st April 1973 for an annual tenancy commencing on that date.
The appellants deny that the Act requires that the valuation list which came into force on the 1st April 1973 should reflect rental values current at that date. They rely on the fact that the 1967 Act does not contain an express requirement that hereditaments should be valued as at the 1st April 1973. But such a requirement must be implied because a common valuation date is necessary, the language of section 68 points to the 1st April 1973 as that common valuation date and there is no provision in the Act for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...(1866) LR 1 QB 666 Commissioner of Rating and Valuation v Lai Kit Lau Mutual Aid Committee [1986] HKLR 93 K Shoe Shops v Hardy (VO) [1983] 1 WLR 1273 Stirk & Sons Ltd v Halifax Assessment Committee [1922] 1 KB 264 Double v Southampton Assessment Committee [1922] 2 KB 213 Ladies Hosiery and ......
- Imperial College of Science & Technology v Ebdon (VO)
- Addis Ltd v Clement
- Thorn Emi Cinemas Ltd v Harrison (Vo)