Image from Google Jackets

Whitsbury Farm and Stud Ltd v Hemens (VO)

Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1988) 2 WLR 72-82(11)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: HL 10 December 1987. An appeal by ratepayers (W), owners and occupiers of four separate hereditaments, comprising stud buildings for breeding and rearing racehorses . (For CA decision see Abstract 37346). W had claimed exemption from rates in respect of the stud buildings. The VO agreed the paddocks were exempt as they were farmland within General Rate Act 1967 s26(4)(a) , but disputed W`s contention that the buildings were exempt as they were 1) "used solely in connection with agricultural operations", or they were, 2) "used for the keeping or breeding of livestock". The lvc upheld W`s claim, but was reversed by the LT, which was upheld by the CA. W appealed to the HL. It was held, dismissing W`s appeal, that 1) stud buildings did not fall within General Rate Act 1967 s26(4)(a) and thus did not qualify for exemption from rates. 2) An animal was not livestock within the Rating Act 1971 s2(1)(a) , unless it was kept for the production of food or wool, or for ... its use in the farming
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38753 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 12254-1001

HL 10 December 1987. An appeal by ratepayers (W), owners and occupiers of four separate hereditaments, comprising stud buildings for breeding and rearing racehorses . (For CA decision see Abstract 37346). W had claimed exemption from rates in respect of the stud buildings. The VO agreed the paddocks were exempt as they were farmland within General Rate Act 1967 s26(4)(a) , but disputed W`s contention that the buildings were exempt as they were 1) "used solely in connection with agricultural operations", or they were, 2) "used for the keeping or breeding of livestock". The lvc upheld W`s claim, but was reversed by the LT, which was upheld by the CA. W appealed to the HL. It was held, dismissing W`s appeal, that 1) stud buildings did not fall within General Rate Act 1967 s26(4)(a) and thus did not qualify for exemption from rates. 2) An animal was not livestock within the Rating Act 1971 s2(1)(a) , unless it was kept for the production of food or wool, or for ... its use in the farming