Debenhams PLC v Westminster City Council
Debenhams PLC v Westminster City Council
- 1986
- Weekly Law Reports (1986) 3 WLR 1063-1080(18) .
HL 4 December 1986. Appeal by Westminster City Council against Debenhams PLC,for non-payment of rates in respect of premises at 200-202 Regent Street and 50-52 and 27-28 Kingly Street,London W1. Debenhams were owners of the former Hamleys toy shop in Regent Street, with two buildings comprising a single hereditament for rating purposes. The block was numbered 200-202 Regent Street at the shopfront and 50-52 Kingly Street at the rear.The second building,27-28 Kingly Street,on the opposite side of the road joined the first by a footbridge and a subway. Both buildings were unoccupied February 1982 to March 1983 and during January to March 1983 the subway and bridge were removed to enable 27-28 Kingly Street to be sold separately. Debenhams asserted that designation of "Nos 172-206 Regent Street" as listed buildings was apt to include the entire hereditaments and they were under no liability to pay unoccupied rates. Following a summons for non-payment of rates,the magistrate held that on
EXEMPTION
RATING APPEAL
UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY
HL 4 December 1986. Appeal by Westminster City Council against Debenhams PLC,for non-payment of rates in respect of premises at 200-202 Regent Street and 50-52 and 27-28 Kingly Street,London W1. Debenhams were owners of the former Hamleys toy shop in Regent Street, with two buildings comprising a single hereditament for rating purposes. The block was numbered 200-202 Regent Street at the shopfront and 50-52 Kingly Street at the rear.The second building,27-28 Kingly Street,on the opposite side of the road joined the first by a footbridge and a subway. Both buildings were unoccupied February 1982 to March 1983 and during January to March 1983 the subway and bridge were removed to enable 27-28 Kingly Street to be sold separately. Debenhams asserted that designation of "Nos 172-206 Regent Street" as listed buildings was apt to include the entire hereditaments and they were under no liability to pay unoccupied rates. Following a summons for non-payment of rates,the magistrate held that on
EXEMPTION
RATING APPEAL
UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY