St. James' and Pall Mall Electric Light Company Ltd v Westminster Assessment Committee
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Atkin |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1933 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1933] UKHL J1109-1 |
| Date | 09 November 1933 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1933] UKHL J1109-1
House of Lords
Lord Atkin.
Lord Warrington of Clyffe.
Lord Tomlin.
Lord Russell of Killowen.
Lord Wright.
After hearing Counsel for the Appellants, as well on Monday the 23d, as on Tuesday the 24th, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the St. James' and Pall Mall Electric Light Company, Limited, whose registered office is at Carnaby Street, Golden Square, in the County of London praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 19th of December 1932, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of the Assessment Committee of the City of Westminster, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and Counsel appearing for the Respondents, but not being called upon; and due consideration being had this day of what was offered for the said Appellants:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 19th day of December 1932, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
The question before the House arises upon an Appeal by one of the large London electric lighting undertakings in respect of their assessment for rates. Their rateable hereditaments were assessed by the Assessment Committee at £89,922 gross and £44,961 rateable. They seek to establish the values at £72,664 gross and £36,332 rateable. According to the Metropolitan Valuation Act the problem before your Lordships is what annual rent might the company reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for the hereditament if the tenant undertook to pay rates and taxes and the landlord undertook to bear the cost of repairs and insurance. It is obvious that when this formula has to be applied to occupiers who carry on such undertakings as mines, docks and harbours, sewage and drainage works, railways, water, gas and electric lighting works, it is inept. In those cases the occupiers generally own the hereditaments on or in which the undertaking is carried on; in some cases they are the sole persons entitled to occupy the premises or carry on the undertaking. In all cases the one inconceivable condition of things is that they should be occupying the hereditaments as tenants from a landlord-owner at a rent varying from year to year on the footing that the landlord executed the necessary repairs. Nevertheless the legislature has refrained from giving any assistance in the matter with the result that the rights and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morecambe and Heysham Corporation v Robinson
...it; Kingston Union Assessment Committee v. Metropclitan Water Board, 1926 Appeal Cases, page 331, and St. James and Pall Hall Electric Light Co. v. Westminster Assessment Committee, 1934 Appeal Cases, page 33; Metropolitan Water Board v. Hertford, 1953, volume 1 All England Law Reports, pag......
-
Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board v Lee (Valuation Officer)
...profits basis as it was stated in the Kingston case and as it was applied in this House in the case of St. James' and Pall Mall Electric Light Company v. Westminster Assessment Committee [1934] A.C. 33. The argument is in substance the same as part of the argument which was presented, with......
-
Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board v Lee (Valuation Officer)
...Appeal Cases at pages 353-4- We think it plaint hat it cannot stand with the reasoning of the House of Lords in the St. James's case, 1934 Appeal Cases, 33. The hypothetical landlord who builds a waterworks would reasonably expect to receive enough rent to enable him to pay interest on the......
-
British Transport Commission v Hingley
...has acquired (page 279 G). 25 Lord Atkin in ( St. James and Pall Mall Electric Light Co. v. Westminster Assessment Committee 1934 Appeal Cases at page 41) gave, as examples of the public utility undertakings to which the profits basis should be applied, mines, docks and harbours, sewage and......