Manchester Marine Ltd v Duckworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Civ J0713-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 13 July 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Civ J0713-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal of Manchester Marine Ltd. from decision of the Lands Tribunal on 19th July 1972.
Revised
The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Megaw and
Lord Justice Scarman
Mr. DAVID WIDDICOMBE, C. C, and Mr. JOHN TAYLOR (instructed by Messrs. Allen and Overy) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
Mr. ALAN FLETCHER (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
THE MASTER OR THE ROLLS: The question here is the proper way of rating a system of dry docks which are near to the Manohester Ship Canal, It turns on the meaning of "plant in section 21(1) of the General Rate Act 1967 which says (so far as material):-
"For the purpose of the valuation of any hereditament….
(a)… all such plant or machinery in or on the hereditament as belongs to any of the classes set out in the statement" (this is a list of classes contained in a statutory order) "shall be deemed to be a part of the hereditament:
(b) except as provided in the foregoing paragraph, no account shall be taken of the value of any plant or machinery in or on the hereditament."
Sub-section (a) does not apply here: because the list of classes set out in the statutory statement does not Include dry docks or part of them. Sub-section (b) does apply. That is the question is what part or parts of the dry docks come within "plant or machinery" in section 21(1) (b) so as to be excluded from rates.
The whole hereditament covers an area of some 12 3/4 acres next to the Trafford Wharf Road, Stretford, Manchester. On going through the entrance you pass workshops such as the plumbers' shop, machine and erecting shop, general stores and buildings. Those are not" plant or machinery". They are clearly to be taken into account in finding the rateable value of the hereditament. Then you come to three dry docks. They have been built at various times over the years. Each of them is of the neighbour-hood of 500ft. long by 65ft. wide. To make them, the earth was excavated to make a great hole. The floors and the walls were lined with concrete or brick faced. There was a dock gate. There were pumps for pumping the water in and out. All so as to get ships in and out as occasion arose.
Some of the dry dock comes within the description of "plant and machinery" and is clearly not rateable. For instance, the dock gates themselves, the pipes and the pumps, the winches and keel blocks and the timber shores. All those are undoubtedly "plant or machinery", and, as such, are not to be taken into account for rating. But a question has arisen about the walls and the floors of the dry docks. They are rigid, immoveable, structures, stronger than a house, For many years they have been included as part of the hereditament. They have been taken into account for rating purposes just as the workshops and buildings have been. But in 1969 there was a decision of the House of Lords which is said to have altered the position. In consequence of the decision the owners of this dry dock claim that the floors and walls are "plant" and are to be excluded from rating just as the pipes, pumps and so forth. In terms of money it makes a lot of difference. If the floors and walls of these dry docks are to be included as part of the hereditament, the rateable value of the whole hereditament would be £40,300; whereas if they are to be excluded (including the cost of the excavation) the rateable value of the hereditament would be £22,100. In other words, the floors and walls add twice as much to the rateable value of the whole hereditament. Such is the controversy between the parties.
The valuation officer held that the floors and walls of the dry docks were not "plant" and were therefore to be taken into account for rating purposes. The Presidont of the Lands Tribunal, Sir Nichael Rowe, held so too.
The dock company appeal to this Court. They rely particularly on Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Barclay Curie 1969 1 W. L. R. 675. That was not a rating case. It was a Revenue case. TheIncome Tax Act 1952 gave a trader "an initial allowance" when he incurred capital expenditure on the provision of machinery or plant for the purposes of the trade. A dock company built a dry dock near the Clyde which was quite indistinguishable from the dry docks we have to consider here near the Manchester Ship Canal. The House of Lords held that the whole of the expenditure on the dock, including the expenditure on making the excavation and on making the concrete floor and walls, was expenditure on the provision of "plant": and accordingly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metals and Alloys Co. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 11 and East York (Municipality), (1985) 7 O.A.C. 241 (CA)
...(Valuation Officer), [1959] 1 All E.R. 391 (H.L.), not appld. [para. 44]. Manchester Marine Ltd. v. Duckworth (Valuation Officer), [1973] 3 All E.R. 838 (C.A.), not appld. [para. Union Cold Storage Co. Ltd. v. Phillips (Valuation Officer), [1976] R.A. 173 (H.L.), not appld. [para. 44]. Xero......
-
Union Cold Storage Company Ltd (Appellants-Applicants) v Phillips (Respondent-Respondent)
...v. Holyoak (1959 1 W.L.R. p. 188), Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Barclay Curie & Co. Ltd. (1969 1 W.L.R. p. 678) and Manchester Marine Ltd. v. Duckworth (1973 1 W.L.R. p. 1431). The first two are decisions of the House of Lords, and the third is a decision of this court. 14 In the firs......
-
Commissioner Of Rating And Valuation v Clp Power Hong Kong Ltd
...he relies for this proposition are Shell-Mex and BP Ltd v Holyoak [1959] 1 WLR 188 (“Shell-Mex”) and Manchester Marine Ltd v Duckworth [1973] 1 WLR 1431 (“Manchester Marine”). He goes so far as to say (paragraph 38) that in the construction of section 8A of the Rating Ordinance, “the legisl......
-
Union Cold Storage Company Ltd v Phillipps (Valuation Officer)
...my respectful opinion, contrary to the contention on behalf of the appellant, Manchester Marine Ltd. v Duckworth (Valuation Officer) [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1431 correctly distinguished Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay, Curle & Co., Ltd., [1969] 1 WLR 675, though both were concerned with co......