Archer Ltd v Richard Henry Robinson (VO)
Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: RA/19/2002, 6 January 2003. The assessment of a factory and premises was determined by a valuation tribunal at £32 000 rateable value in the 1995 rating list. A appealed and wanted the sum to be reduced to £8 000. In 1992 A took a five-year lease on the property on full repairing and insuring terms. Within the terms of the lease, the landlord would carry out specified works, including replacing the existing roof lights. After the ratepayer had moved in it was discovered that the new lights had not been correctly installed. The key issue was the effect of the fact that at the material day the roof was cracked and leaking. The secondary issues that arose were whether the repairing works constituted repairs and if so, whether a reasonable landlord would have deemed them uneconomic. "Held", the appeal property was to be valued on the assumption that, before the hypothetical tenancy began, it had been repaired by way of over-roofing. View decision at www.courtservice.gov.uk/tribunals/lands_frm.htm.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 123623-2001 |
RA/19/2002, 6 January 2003. The assessment of a factory and premises was determined by a valuation tribunal at £32 000 rateable value in the 1995 rating list. A appealed and wanted the sum to be reduced to £8 000. In 1992 A took a five-year lease on the property on full repairing and insuring terms. Within the terms of the lease, the landlord would carry out specified works, including replacing the existing roof lights. After the ratepayer had moved in it was discovered that the new lights had not been correctly installed. The key issue was the effect of the fact that at the material day the roof was cracked and leaking. The secondary issues that arose were whether the repairing works constituted repairs and if so, whether a reasonable landlord would have deemed them uneconomic. "Held", the appeal property was to be valued on the assumption that, before the hypothetical tenancy began, it had been repaired by way of over-roofing. View decision at www.courtservice.gov.uk/tribunals/lands_frm.htm.