Image from Google Jackets

R v Hackney LBC, ex parte S G Warburg Group Management Ltd

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1988) RVR 75-78(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 25 March 1988. Application for judicial review by ratepayers (W) seeking a declaration that the rating authority (H) was not entitled to recover from W occupied general rates in respect of the fourth to seventh floors of 1 Finsbury Avenue, London , EC2, based on £1,182,472 rv proposed by the VO on 30 April 1987. W claimed an assessment of £694,763 rv the figure entered in the valuation list. The point at issue was, where a rv for a given property appeared in the valuation list and during the year the VO proposed to increase the rv, such a proposal being accepted by H, but challenged by W, whether the sum of rates recoverable by H for that year was to be assessed on the rv appearing in the valuation list or the proposed new rv. Both parties agreed that the answer to that question was to be found in a correct interpretation and application of the General Rate Act 1967 s 6 . The judge concluded that on its true construction the Act allowed rating authorities to levy rates on the bas
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39426 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 16610-1001

QBD 25 March 1988. Application for judicial review by ratepayers (W) seeking a declaration that the rating authority (H) was not entitled to recover from W occupied general rates in respect of the fourth to seventh floors of 1 Finsbury Avenue, London , EC2, based on £1,182,472 rv proposed by the VO on 30 April 1987. W claimed an assessment of £694,763 rv the figure entered in the valuation list. The point at issue was, where a rv for a given property appeared in the valuation list and during the year the VO proposed to increase the rv, such a proposal being accepted by H, but challenged by W, whether the sum of rates recoverable by H for that year was to be assessed on the rv appearing in the valuation list or the proposed new rv. Both parties agreed that the answer to that question was to be found in a correct interpretation and application of the General Rate Act 1967 s 6 . The judge concluded that on its true construction the Act allowed rating authorities to levy rates on the bas