Cumber (VO) v Associated Family Bakeries (South West) Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 252 (5964) EG 6 October 1979, 69-70(2)Publication details: 1979Subject(s): Summary: LT 15 June 1979. An appeal from a decision reducing the assessment on a bakery in Avonmouth from £19,300 rv to £17,300. The premises included certain disputed items of `plant` namely a 12-sack oven with associated prover and with a separate 18-sack oven. A claimed these were excluded from rateability under GRA 1967 s21 and the Plant and Machinery (Rating) Order 1960 as amended by the Plant and Machinery (Rating) Amendment Order 1974. The dispute turned upon the construction of Class 4 para (e) of the exceptions to the Order; whether the items were readily moveable from one site to another without substantial demolition of the item. Held, re-erection on another site would require substantial demolition of the items; that they were not to be considered as plant deemed to be part of the hereditament but were to be excluded under the terms of the Order. VO`s appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS25678 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 31939-1001 |
LT 15 June 1979. An appeal from a decision reducing the assessment on a bakery in Avonmouth from £19,300 rv to £17,300. The premises included certain disputed items of `plant` namely a 12-sack oven with associated prover and with a separate 18-sack oven. A claimed these were excluded from rateability under GRA 1967 s21 and the Plant and Machinery (Rating) Order 1960 as amended by the Plant and Machinery (Rating) Amendment Order 1974. The dispute turned upon the construction of Class 4 para (e) of the exceptions to the Order; whether the items were readily moveable from one site to another without substantial demolition of the item. Held, re-erection on another site would require substantial demolition of the items; that they were not to be considered as plant deemed to be part of the hereditament but were to be excluded under the terms of the Order. VO`s appeal dismissed.