Image from Google Jackets

Courtman (VO) v West Devon and North Cornwall Farmers Ltd

Language: English Series: Rating Appeals ; 1990 RA 17-25(5)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: LT 24 November 1989. A feedmill and premises situated in Launceston , Cornwall was held by the lvc to be exempt from rating as an agricultural building. This was by virtue of the General Rate Act 1967 s26 , and ss1 & 4 of the Rating Act 1971. The VO appealed to the Lands Tribunal. The mill was owned by a local agricultural co-op. At all material times the products of the mill were used by the members of the co-op for feeding animals, 2% of the mill`s output went to non-members. The VO considered that the premises failed to be exempt as they were not solely used in connection with agricultural operations carried on by society members. VO said that in deciding whether or not the word solely applied it was necessary to look at input as well as output. To this end 40% of input and 2% of output did not go to co-op members. Appeal was dismissed; the mill was considered to be used in connection with agricultural operations on agricultural land.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42247 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 35665-1001

LT 24 November 1989. A feedmill and premises situated in Launceston , Cornwall was held by the lvc to be exempt from rating as an agricultural building. This was by virtue of the General Rate Act 1967 s26 , and ss1 & 4 of the Rating Act 1971. The VO appealed to the Lands Tribunal. The mill was owned by a local agricultural co-op. At all material times the products of the mill were used by the members of the co-op for feeding animals, 2% of the mill`s output went to non-members. The VO considered that the premises failed to be exempt as they were not solely used in connection with agricultural operations carried on by society members. VO said that in deciding whether or not the word solely applied it was necessary to look at input as well as output. To this end 40% of input and 2% of output did not go to co-op members. Appeal was dismissed; the mill was considered to be used in connection with agricultural operations on agricultural land.