Hailbury Investments Ltd v Westminster City Council
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1986) 1 WLR 1232(15)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: HL 16 October 1986. Appeal by plaintiff company against previous decision allowing defendant rating authority`s appeal regarding the rating of the company`s unoccupied buildings described in the valuation list as "offices" but prevented from being so used by planning conditions . The rating authority contended that they were still the same hereditaments as those in the list and so the company was liable to pay rates on the premises as unoccupied properties under the General Rate Act 1967, Sched 1 Para 1 (1) . The company claimed exemption under Sched 1 Para 2. The company contended that the description of a hereditament shown in the valuation list was an essential element in the identity of that hereditament and so it followed that occupation of the physical entity described as offices in the list for any purpose other than as offices, was the occupation of a different hereditament. Therefore before any liability to pay rates in respect of that new and different hereditament could ar| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37146 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 2541-1001 |
HL 16 October 1986. Appeal by plaintiff company against previous decision allowing defendant rating authority`s appeal regarding the rating of the company`s unoccupied buildings described in the valuation list as "offices" but prevented from being so used by planning conditions . The rating authority contended that they were still the same hereditaments as those in the list and so the company was liable to pay rates on the premises as unoccupied properties under the General Rate Act 1967, Sched 1 Para 1 (1) . The company claimed exemption under Sched 1 Para 2. The company contended that the description of a hereditament shown in the valuation list was an essential element in the identity of that hereditament and so it followed that occupation of the physical entity described as offices in the list for any purpose other than as offices, was the occupation of a different hereditament. Therefore before any liability to pay rates in respect of that new and different hereditament could ar