Rank Xerox (UK) Ltd v Johnson (VO)
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 279 (6301) 13 September 1986, p1096-1099 (3)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: LVC(572-575/1984). These appeals relate to whether two office blocks, originally occupied separately, but now occupied by the appellant company for office use, were one hereditament. The appeals rose from three proposals made by Richard Ellis on the two blocks. In the first two proposals they sought an alteration in the valuation list and a reduction of the assessments on the grounds that they were incorrect and excessive. A further proposal was made saying that the "existing assessments should be merged and reduced" and "that the two buildings form one hereditament and the existing assessments are excessive, incorrect and bad in law." The Greater London Valuation Court decided the appeals resulting from the proposals on 31 January 1984, dismissing all three appeals and confirming the assessments in the valuation list. Rank Xerox, the appellant company appealed. The ratepayers contended that the appeal blocks were contiguous because they were touching. Alternatively, if they were not| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS36901 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 968-1001 |
LVC(572-575/1984). These appeals relate to whether two office blocks, originally occupied separately, but now occupied by the appellant company for office use, were one hereditament. The appeals rose from three proposals made by Richard Ellis on the two blocks. In the first two proposals they sought an alteration in the valuation list and a reduction of the assessments on the grounds that they were incorrect and excessive. A further proposal was made saying that the "existing assessments should be merged and reduced" and "that the two buildings form one hereditament and the existing assessments are excessive, incorrect and bad in law." The Greater London Valuation Court decided the appeals resulting from the proposals on 31 January 1984, dismissing all three appeals and confirming the assessments in the valuation list. Rank Xerox, the appellant company appealed. The ratepayers contended that the appeal blocks were contiguous because they were touching. Alternatively, if they were not