Farmer (VO) and another v Buxted Poultry Ltd
Language: English Series: Rating Appeals ; (1990) RA 105-120(9)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: LT 24 November 1989. Appeals from decisions of lvc that a poultry processing factory and premises and a provender mill were both exempt from rating as agricultural buildings . The mill was occupied by a company and used for food production, the majority of which was fed to poultry on the company`s breeding and rearing farms, situated between a quarter of a mile and 120 miles from the mill. The factory was also occupied by the company and used to process poultry from the farms. The issue was whether the buildings were "occupied together with" and "used solely in connection with the operations" carried on at the farms within the Rating Act 1971 s2 . LT held, dismissing the appeals, that 1) the mill was solely used as an agricultural building; 2) that both the subject hereditaments were, as a matter of fact, occupied together with the company`s farms and 3) the whole of the factory was an agricultural building or buildings used in connection with agricultural operations on the rearing f| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42798 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 38858-1001 |
LT 24 November 1989. Appeals from decisions of lvc that a poultry processing factory and premises and a provender mill were both exempt from rating as agricultural buildings . The mill was occupied by a company and used for food production, the majority of which was fed to poultry on the company`s breeding and rearing farms, situated between a quarter of a mile and 120 miles from the mill. The factory was also occupied by the company and used to process poultry from the farms. The issue was whether the buildings were "occupied together with" and "used solely in connection with the operations" carried on at the farms within the Rating Act 1971 s2 . LT held, dismissing the appeals, that 1) the mill was solely used as an agricultural building; 2) that both the subject hereditaments were, as a matter of fact, occupied together with the company`s farms and 3) the whole of the factory was an agricultural building or buildings used in connection with agricultural operations on the rearing f