Image from Google Jackets

R v Valuation Officer, ex parte High Park Investments Ltd

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; 27(4) June 1987, 84-86Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 18 February 1987. Application for judicial review to make an order of certiorari to quash a direction to enter the valuation of 3-7 Herbal Hill, London EC1 in the valuation list . The VO made his proposal in June 1979 to include 3-7 Herbal Hill as a car park at a rateable value of 1,075. The proposal was addressed at the time to Nyfil & Co, 4-6 Hatton Garden, as it was assumed that this company was the occupier of the car park. It was argued by the applicant (H), that at the time Nyfil & Co was not the owner or occupier of 3-7 Herbal Hill and 4-6 Hatton Garden was not the trading or any address of either Nyfil & Co or H; it was accepted that Nyfil was an associated company. It was claimed that by not sending the proposal to add the car park to the valuation list, H was denied the opportunity of objecting to the proposal before the lvc. QBD held that H had no case to challenge the proposal, made nearly eight years before. The company had been ignorant of the correct court for maki

QBD 18 February 1987. Application for judicial review to make an order of certiorari to quash a direction to enter the valuation of 3-7 Herbal Hill, London EC1 in the valuation list . The VO made his proposal in June 1979 to include 3-7 Herbal Hill as a car park at a rateable value of 1,075. The proposal was addressed at the time to Nyfil & Co, 4-6 Hatton Garden, as it was assumed that this company was the occupier of the car park. It was argued by the applicant (H), that at the time Nyfil & Co was not the owner or occupier of 3-7 Herbal Hill and 4-6 Hatton Garden was not the trading or any address of either Nyfil & Co or H; it was accepted that Nyfil was an associated company. It was claimed that by not sending the proposal to add the car park to the valuation list, H was denied the opportunity of objecting to the proposal before the lvc. QBD held that H had no case to challenge the proposal, made nearly eight years before. The company had been ignorant of the correct court for maki