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| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37880 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 7358-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
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