Image from Google Jackets

Stringer (VO) v J Sainsbury PLC and others

Language: English Series: Rating Appeals ; 1992 RA 17-33(9)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: LT 29 November 1991. A room containing six automated teller machines (ATMs) for dispensing bank notes was assessed, pursuant to a decision of an lvc, as part of a hereditament comprising supermarket and premises. VO appealed to LT and contended that the ATMs should be six separate hereditaments distinct from the supermarket. The ATMs comprised a secure room and an security lobby adjacent to the lobby of the supermarket, built as an integral part of it. Separate financial institutions supplied and installed the ATMs and computer links but they were operated and maintained by supermarket staff. The supermarket also arranged for the weekly cash delivery and ordered future cash supplies. The appeals were dismissed and the rateable value confirmed because the secure room and security lobby were in the rateable occupation of the supermarket and no other party, it was a complimentary joint venture, day to day management was carried out by the supermarket, the ATMs were not operated separate
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS45996 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 56249-1001

LT 29 November 1991. A room containing six automated teller machines (ATMs) for dispensing bank notes was assessed, pursuant to a decision of an lvc, as part of a hereditament comprising supermarket and premises. VO appealed to LT and contended that the ATMs should be six separate hereditaments distinct from the supermarket. The ATMs comprised a secure room and an security lobby adjacent to the lobby of the supermarket, built as an integral part of it. Separate financial institutions supplied and installed the ATMs and computer links but they were operated and maintained by supermarket staff. The supermarket also arranged for the weekly cash delivery and ordered future cash supplies. The appeals were dismissed and the rateable value confirmed because the secure room and security lobby were in the rateable occupation of the supermarket and no other party, it was a complimentary joint venture, day to day management was carried out by the supermarket, the ATMs were not operated separate