Image from Google Jackets

Croydon LBC v Maxon System Inc Ltd.

Series: Rating Appeals ; [1999] RA 286-293(4)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: QBD 6 May 1999. M was in exclusive possession of part, but not the whole, of a hereditament. The council, C, appealed against a decision that M was not liable to pay non-domestic rates on the whole hereditament. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 s43(1) provided that 'a person shall as regards a hereditament be subject to a non-domestic rate in respect of a chargeable financial year if the following conditions are fulfilled in respect of any day in the year: a) on the day the ratepayer is in occupation of all or part of the hereditament;...' Held, appeal dismissed. The 1998 Act s43(1) did not change the pre-existing law that where a hereditament was occupied in parts, no one was liable for rates on the whole hereditament. S44(D) enabled apportionment where part of a hereditament was unoccupied for a short period, whereas if C's contention was correct a person in occupation of part was liable for the rates of the whole in the long term and that would be absurd.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS61286 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 101916-1001

QBD 6 May 1999. M was in exclusive possession of part, but not the whole, of a hereditament. The council, C, appealed against a decision that M was not liable to pay non-domestic rates on the whole hereditament. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 s43(1) provided that 'a person shall as regards a hereditament be subject to a non-domestic rate in respect of a chargeable financial year if the following conditions are fulfilled in respect of any day in the year: a) on the day the ratepayer is in occupation of all or part of the hereditament;...' Held, appeal dismissed. The 1998 Act s43(1) did not change the pre-existing law that where a hereditament was occupied in parts, no one was liable for rates on the whole hereditament. S44(D) enabled apportionment where part of a hereditament was unoccupied for a short period, whereas if C's contention was correct a person in occupation of part was liable for the rates of the whole in the long term and that would be absurd.