The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v R.w. Woodbury (valuation Officer) and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LLOYD,LORD JUSTICE MANN,SIR DAVID CROOM-JOHNSON |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1991 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1991] EWCA Civ J0703-6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 91/0668 |
| Date | 03 July 1991 |
[1991] EWCA Civ J0703-6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LANDS TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Lloyd
Lord Justice Mann
Sir David Croom-Johnson
91/0668
MR PATRICK GROUND Q.C. and MR RICHARD HONE, instructed by G.M. Ives, City Solicitor and Secretary, Westminster City Council, appeared for the Appellants.
MR WILLIAM HUNTER, instructed by Messrs Blakeneys, appeared for the Respondents.
We might have taken time to consider our judgment in this case, since it raises a number of interesting and quite difficult questions. But as we have formed a clear view as to the outcome, we propose to give our judgments straightaway.
The case concerns the vessel "Hispaniola", which is moored alongside the Victoria Embankment at the foot of Northumberland Avenue. The vessel is permanently moored to the river bed by twin vertical dolphins. It is run as a restaurant by the second named respondents, The Yard Arm Club Limited, whom I shall refer to simply as "the respondents".
The underlying question in the case is whether the respondents are liable to pay rates as occupiers of any, and if so, what, rateable hereditament. But there is a preliminary question whether the proposal to include the hereditament in the valuation list is invalid. The proposal is dated as long ago as 8th March 1982. The description of the hereditament in the proposal is "Restaurant and premises". The address is given as "Vessel 'Hispaniola' Victoria Embankment". The gross value was given as £11,000, the rateable value as £9,138.
On 27th December 1986 the Central London Valuation Court held that that proposal was invalid. The reason given was as follows:
"The proposal describes a property which is manifestly a vessel, and so not apparently rateable by itself. The Valuation Officer suggested that the inclusion of the word 'premises' in the terms 'restaurant and premises' included the surrounding gangways, entranceways, etc. and so implied a hereditament on land, or using land, which was rateable.
However, it is clear to the court that the description refers only to the use of the vessel, which is not a rateable hereditament itself, and does not describe rateable land or a rateable use of land. That the hereditament is land or the use of land must at least be clear from the proposal, and it is not. The Court has therefore to find the proposal invalid."
The Valuation Officer appealed against that decision by notice dated 16th January 1987. The appeal came before Mr V.G. Wellings, who is now, although I think he was not then, President of the Lands Tribunal. On 6th July 1989 the Lands Tribunal upheld the decision of the Valuation Court on this preliminary point. The Lands Tribunal was then asked to state a case for the decision of the Court of Appeal.
We are of course bound by the facts stated in the case, whether found or agreed, so it is as well that I should set them out at this stage. Since they are short and clear, there is no need to summarise their effect.
"1. The vessel 'Hispaniola' is moored alongside the Victoria Embankment at the bottom of Northumberland Avenue and almost opposite the Embankment underground station. It is situated between Hungerford railway bridge (leading to Charing Cross mainline station) and Westminster Bridge.
2. The vessel is moored to two steel piles, called dolphins, fore and aft. Each dolphin is embedded in the river bed. To each dolphin the vessel is connected by steel 'horns' which permit the vessel to rise and fall with the tide but prevent forward or rearward or lateral movement. The vessel is also anchored to the river bed, fore and aft. From each anchor chain a subsidiary and smaller gauge chain goes to the embankment wall.
3. The vessel has no engine and is incapable of being moved without towage. It was formerly a steamer on the River Clyde. It was built in 1953 and is 165 feet long. It has been at its present location since 1975 and has since then been used as a restaurant ship. The vessel has three decks as follows:
(1) The main deck, which comprises a restaurant with seating capacity for 170 people and also a bar. On the port side there is a promenade deck with seating.
(2) Below that deck, the upper deck, which is principally used as a private function room or restaurant with seating capacity for 80 people. There are open deck spaces fore and aft with seating.
(3) Below that, the lower deck which consists of storage areas and public toilets.
4. The vessel is permanently connected to all main services including gas, electricity, water, telephone and main drainage (pumped from the vessel). The main and upper decks have full air conditioning and double glazing.
5. Customers of the restaurant obtain access to it through an entrance on the Victoria Embankment and thence via a walkway down to a metal canopied gangway to the vessel. A parallel but secondary and uncovered gangway gives access to the vessel for the purposes of transport of stores etc. There is an open storage area available to the Club on the walkway, between the Embankment and the river, to the north of the service gangway.
6. The vessel and its moorings are owned by the club and the river bed, over which the vessel is moored and into which its anchors and dolphins are inserted, is owned by the Port of London Authority. The river wall of the Victoria Embankment, to which the horizontal anchorages and gangways are fixed were, at the date of the proposal, owned by the Greater London Council but are now owned by the London Residuary Body pending transfer to the Westminster City Council.
7. On 19th August 1978 the Port of London Authority granted to the club a licence (in substitution for an earlier licence of the same kind) permitting the club to place or retain the vessel with its piles, gangways and cables in its location off the Victoria Embankment. The licence was accompanied by a drawing of the vessel and its moorings, which drawing shows inter alia the dolphins embedded in the soil of the river bed. In the licence the consideration for it was stated to be the annual sum of £4,290 subject to review after 1st December 1979. The licence was expressly revocable by the Port Authority on 14 days' notice (subject to appeal to the Board of Trade). One of the obligations imposed on the club by the licence was to remove the works from the River Thames and to reinstate the river bed to the Port authority's reasonable satisfaction before the expiration of any notice of revocation of the licence given by the Port Authority.
8. The club's rights of attachment to the river wall at Victoria Embankment for the purpose of access and storage were granted by the Greater London Council on 1st March 1971 in an agreement between the Council and the club under seal of that date. Under the terms of the agreement the club was liable to pay to the Council an annual fee as follows:
(a) From 1st January 1971 to 31st December 1972: £200;
(b) From 1st January 1973 to 31st December 1975: £300; thereafter during the continuance of the licence: £4 00, subject to review in the manner stated in the agreement.
9. The club at all material times has had the benefit of a justices' restaurant licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor in the vessel's restaurant."
The reasons given by the Lands Tribunal for dismissing the appeal on this point were as follows:
"In my judgment, however generously the proposal is construed it relates to a chattel and not to land. It is difficult to understand how the wording of the proposal can be said to be sufficient to connect the vessel with occupation of both the river bed and the river wall. However, if it could be said that the proposal purported to rate a chattel together with any land, then, it is invalid because it includes the vessel which, in the light of my decision, is not rateable. The hereditament to which a proposal refers must consist solely of rateable subjects; see the definition of 'hereditament' in section 115(1) of the General Rate Act 1967. For these reasons, the Central London Valuation Court in its careful reasons came to the right conclusion and the appeal is dismissed. I agree with Mr Hunter that the correct rateable hereditament consists of the mooring on the river wall passageway and storage area but that the vessel is not part of that hereditament though it may be taken into account in so far as its presence enhances the value of the mooring. No proposal to that effect is before me and no valuation on that basis has been provided; in such a valuation no doubt the consideration paid to the GLC would have some relevance."
The only valuation before the Lands Tribunal was a valuation by Mr Woodbury dated 8th March 1982. That valuation clearly relates to the vessel. The gross value of the upper deck is given as £2,870; the main deck, including the restaurant and bar, as £5,975, and the lower deck as £1,628, the overall total being £10,473. The value given to the land, gangway, dolphins, moorings et cetera is said to be "reflected". So it is obvious, for what it is worth, that this experienced valuation officer was valuing the vessel as the hereditament, or at least as the main element in a composite hereditament.
There was an alternative proposal in which the hereditament was described as comprising the lateral mooring rights and the facilities on shore as enhanced in value by the nearby presence of the ship. But that alternative proposal was not put forward before the Lands Tribunal and it is not before us. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial