Union Cold Storage Company Ltd v Phillipps (Valuation Officer)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Wilberforce,Lord Diplock,Lord Simon of Glaisdale,Lord Kilbrandon,Lord Edmund-Davies |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] UKHL J1117-1 |
| Date | 17 November 1976 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1976] UKHL J1117-1
House of Lords
Lord Wilberforce
Lord Diplock
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Lord Kilbrandon
Lord Edmund-Davies
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Union Cold Storage Company Limited against Phillipps (Valuation Officer), That the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 11th, as on Tuesday the 12th, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Union Cold Storage Company Limited whose registered office is at 19/20 West Smithfield, London, E.C.1, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 17th of July 1975, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her 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 Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of R. W. Phillipps, the Valuation Officer for the Salford Valuation Area, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled. That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 17th day of July 1975, 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 Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
I have had the benefit of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Diplock. I entirely agree with it and would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
The question in this appeal is whether the insulation assembly in a cold store occupied by the ratepayers is to be deemed to be part of the hereditament under Section 21(1)( a) of the General Rate Act, 1967, for the purpose of ascertaining the rateable value of the hereditament. This depends upon whether the insulation is plant or machinery falling within Class 4 of the Plant and Machinery (Rating) Order 1960. Class 4 contains a lengthy list of various items of plant or machinery introduced by the words:—
"The following items, except:—
( a) any such item which it not, and is not the nature of, a building or structure; and
( b) any part of any such item which does not form an integral part of such item as a building or structure or as being in the nature of a building or structure."
The list which follows includes "Chambers, vessels and containers for … Refrigerating".
That part of the hereditament in which the insulation assembly is housed consists of an outer shell of brick and concrete walls, enclosing an insulated floor and covered by a corrugated asbestos roof. Within this is an inner shell of insulated walls attached to rails fixed to the outer walls so as to leave a space between the two walls, and an insulated ceiling suspended from steel girders attached to the roof joists of the outer shell. The insulated space thus formed is divided by internal insulated walls into sixteen separate chambers for refrigerating, two of which were used for freezing and the remainder as cold stores, and includes a corridor providing a means of access to some of the chambers. Full details of the method of construction are to be found in the Case Stated by the Lands Tribunal and the various drawings attached thereto. A more condensed description is to be found in the judgment of Buckley L.J. in the Court of Appeal.
Before the Lands Tribunal, the argument for the ratepayers was put in two ways. One was on the basis that each of the 16 rooms into which the cold store was divided constituted a separate item under Class 4 of the 1960 Order. The alternative argument was on the basis that the outer shell constituted a single chamber for refrigerating. On the 16-items basis, the ratepayers contended that none of the individual chambers formed by the insulating walls, ceiling and floor which enclosed it, was in the nature of a building or structure. On the single-item basis, they argued that the insulating walls lining the outer shell, the ceiling and the partition walls did not form an integral part of the chamber formed by the external walls and the roof and floor. Before your Lordships House, however, the contention that if there were 16 chambers the insulating walls and ceilings which constituted each chamber were not in the nature of a building or structure was abandoned by the ratepayers. Moreover, it was never...
To continue reading
Request your trial