Image from Google Jackets

Addis Ltd v Clement (VO)

Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1988) 1 WLR 301-306(6)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: HL 11 February 1988. Appeal by ratepayers (A) from CA decision in favour of VO (C), on the proper interpretation of the General Rate Act 1967 s20. A`s industrial hereditament was situated a very short distance from the Lower Swansea Valley Enterprise Zone. It was common ground that one result of the setting up of the zone was to depress the rental values of commercial and industrial property situated outside but in the vicinity of the designated area. A proposed a reduction in rates on the hereditament on grounds that establishment of the zone had adversely affected the value of the hereditament. Firstly the LVC and then, on appeal, LT held that by virtue of the General Rate Act 1967 s20(1)(b) (which concerns the locality in which a hereditament is situated), the consequences of setting up the zone was properly to be taken into account and the valuation of the hereditament was reduced accordingly. On appeal to CA, C`s appeal was allowed. On appeal to HL by A, CA`s decision was revers
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38857 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 12827-1001

HL 11 February 1988. Appeal by ratepayers (A) from CA decision in favour of VO (C), on the proper interpretation of the General Rate Act 1967 s20. A`s industrial hereditament was situated a very short distance from the Lower Swansea Valley Enterprise Zone. It was common ground that one result of the setting up of the zone was to depress the rental values of commercial and industrial property situated outside but in the vicinity of the designated area. A proposed a reduction in rates on the hereditament on grounds that establishment of the zone had adversely affected the value of the hereditament. Firstly the LVC and then, on appeal, LT held that by virtue of the General Rate Act 1967 s20(1)(b) (which concerns the locality in which a hereditament is situated), the consequences of setting up the zone was properly to be taken into account and the valuation of the hereditament was reduced accordingly. On appeal to CA, C`s appeal was allowed. On appeal to HL by A, CA`s decision was revers