Trendworthy Two Ltd v Islington LBC
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1988) 1 All ER 953-958(6)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: HL 24 March 1988. The plaintiff (T) was charged rates under the General Rate Act 1967 in respect of periods prior to the building being occupied. T objected that they were not liable until the relevant hereditaments and their respective rateable values had been entered in the valuation list s. It was held by CA that T were not liable. The HL has overruled this claiming that a rating authority has the power to amend the rate of a newly erected and unoccupied property so as to make the owner liable for rates on the basis of the value proposed by the VO even though the proposed valuation is the subject of an unresolved objection and the new hereditament has not been entered in the valuation list. This has a related case running concurrently London Merchant Securities Plc v Islington London Borough Council . (Abs 38010)| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39136 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 14624-1001 |
HL 24 March 1988. The plaintiff (T) was charged rates under the General Rate Act 1967 in respect of periods prior to the building being occupied. T objected that they were not liable until the relevant hereditaments and their respective rateable values had been entered in the valuation list s. It was held by CA that T were not liable. The HL has overruled this claiming that a rating authority has the power to amend the rate of a newly erected and unoccupied property so as to make the owner liable for rates on the basis of the value proposed by the VO even though the proposed valuation is the subject of an unresolved objection and the new hereditament has not been entered in the valuation list. This has a related case running concurrently London Merchant Securities Plc v Islington London Borough Council . (Abs 38010)