Sussex Caravan Parks Ltd v Richardson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE HOLROYD PEARCE |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1961 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1961] EWCA Civ J0126-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Docket Number | LVC/2281/1958. |
| Date | 26 January 1961 |
In the Matter of the Local Government Act. 1948
In the Matter of an Appeal from the Eastbourne, Hastings and East Sussex (Eastern Part) Local Valuation Court.
[1961] EWCA Civ J0126-1
Lord Justice Holroyd Pearce
Lord Justice Harman and
Lord Justice Davies.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Sir DEREK WALKER-SMITH, Q.C., and Mr. ALAN ORR (instructed by The Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Valuation Officer.
Mr. PATRICK R. E. BROWNS, Q.C., and Mr. GRAHAM N. EYRE (instructed by Messrs Menneer, Idle & Blackett) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Company.
: This appeal concerns about thirty acres of land occupied by the Sussex Caravan Parks Limited as a caravan parking site at St. Leopards-on-Sea. At its south- east corner is a quarry which adjoins the junction of be hill Road, and Harley Shute Road. Steps lead up from the quarry to the rest of the land, which is on a higher level. That land runs back a long way being bounded on the west side by Haven Road. and on the east side by the back gardens of the houses in Harley Shute Road. Towards the northern and, nearly half a mile from the quarry, the re is an entrance between the houses in Harley Shuts Road, and near that entrance the re wore at the material time two buildings that had been built on the land for the purpose of administration and ablution. The ablution block was usable and ratable at the material date, the 22nd March 1957. The administrative building was erected, but not finished internally. Originally the land had been agricultural land, and was not rated.
In March 1957 the Valuation Officer's representative went to look at the quarry, and saw ten caravans parked closely together there, He did not notice the stops leading up to the main site further north, and was unaware that many caravans were parked round the buildings nearly half a mile north of the quarry.
He made a proposal dated 22nd March 1957 - which I will call the first proposal - for the alteration of the Valuation List by the inclusion of an entry; "N.262. Description: Land used as Caravan Park. Name and situation: Junction of Be hill Road and Harley Shuts Road. Ratable value; £20". No objection was made, and the list was altered accordingly. The Valuation Officer later became aware of the existence of the main site, which is very valuable.
In March 1958, there fore, he made a proposal - which I will call the second proposal - for the alteration of the Valuation List by the inclusion of an entry; "N.512. Description; Caravan camping site, licensed club room, shop and premises. Name and situation: Combo Haven Caravan Site, Haven Road. Ratable value: £2,600".
On the 18th April the agents of Sussex Caravan Parks Limited lodged a proposed alteration to ###quary###1 ratable value on the grounds of incorrect designation, and consequent excessive rating. But they hurriedly withdrew that three days later, and gave notice of objection to the proposal on three grounds of which now the only relevant one is that there is an existing assessment dealing with the caravan park on which rates have already been paid to the 30th September 1958". The Local Valuation Court accepted the proposal, and confirmed the rating valuation of £2,600. The Lands Tribunal on appeal hold that the first proposal related to the whole site, and that, there fore, the second proposal was bad in that it related to a hereditament already in the Valuation List. The Valuation Officer appeals on the ground that the Tribunal was wrong in law in so holding, and that there was no evidence on which it could so find.
The Tribunal inspected the site, and made the following findings on the evidence at page 7 of the Decision: "The description 'land used as a caravan park' can apply equally to the quarry site alone or to the whole site including the quarry and the address 'corner junction of Bexhill Road and Harley Shute Road can also apply equally to the quarry or to the entire site. The description and situation given in the second proposal do not of themselves give any indication that the quarry site is excluded, but if it can be established that the first proposal does relate only to the quarry, then I consider the words in the second proposal not only do not warrant the proposition that the quarry land is included in that proposal but rather that it is excluded the refrom.
"In my view the validity of the second proposal must depend upon whether by its terms the assessment of £20 ratable value rotated to the quarry only or to the entire site. The description and situation applying equally do not give any assistance, and the decision must rest upon the facts of occupation, and from the evidence I find that (i) caravans were parked in the quarry site; (ii) caravans were parked round the administrative building; (iii) the steps to Be hill Road were usable; (iv) the administrative building was erected but not finished internally, and (v) the adjoining ablution block was usable.
"From these findings I think it must follow that the appellants were in occupation of the whole site for the purpose of the parking of caravans and that they are entitled to say that proposal is bad in that it related to about hereditament already in the valuation list and I do not think that the action of the appellants in lodging the proposal of the 18th April 1958 - about Friday - and the withdrawing it on the following Monday can invalidate there entitlement".
It is argued on behalf of the Valuation Officer by Sir Derek Walker-Smith that that decision is wrong on two grounds: First, he urges that the Tribunal erred in holding that the description of "land used as caravan park" together with the name and situation, "junction of Be hill Road and Harley shut to Road" can apply equally to the quarry alone and to the whole site. Alternatively, he argues that if there is any ambiguity it is to be resolved according to the understanding of the parties; and on the facts the proper inference is that both the parties clearly intended and understood the first proposal to relate only to the quarry site.
His first argument runs as follows. The description description of the main site which had buildings, one of which was at that time admittedly ratable. How refers to the Valuation List Rules, and to the 1925 Rating and Valuation Act, section 22 subsection (1) (a), in order to show and land with buildings on it. Although on cannot go so far as to say that a reference to land with buildings as land simplistic in a proposal is wrong or bad, yet the presumption, he argues, is that when one refers to land one is referring to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slough Estates Ltd v Slough Borough Council (No. 2)
...But it was held not proper to use the application to cut down the ordinary meaning of the permission. On the other hand in Sussex Caravan Parks v. Richardson [1961] 1 W.L.R. 561 there are observations by Harman L.J. to the effect that in construing an entry in a valuation list it is permiss......
- Petroleum Nasional Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu
-
Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd v L. Schuler A.G.
...considerably weakened as a persuasive authority by what was said about it in Gaisberg v. Storr [1950] 1 K.B. 107, 114 and Sussex Caravans Park Limited v. Richardson [1961] 1 W.L.R. 561, 568. In the light of the Whitworth Street Estates case it can no longer be regarded as authority for th......
-
Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd v L. Schuler A.G.
...114, to which my Lord, Lord Justice Edmund Davies referred and of the sterner caveat added to that by Lord Justice Harman in Sussex Caravan Parks Ltd. v. Richardson 1961 1 W.L.R. 561, 569 that "it is a case which has been long under suspicion of the gravest kind from real property lawyers.......