Shaw v Hughes (VO)
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1991) 31 RVR 96-98(2)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: LT 26 March 1991. The premises in question are a house which had a garage constructed within the curtilage but 30-40 feet north of the house. Until 1980 the house and the garage were separately occupied, the latter as a storage depot or warehouse . The two occupiers were separately assessed for rates. In 1985 the whole property was purchased by B who made a proposal to merge the two entries on the valuation list . This was agreed. In 1988 D sold the house to the plaintiff S but retained the garage and the rest of the curtilage as a building plot. D applied to have the valuation list changed on the grounds that "the hereditament as described ... has now ceased to exist". The VO`s objection was dismissed on the grounds that as currently stated S would be paying rates on property he did not own or inhabit.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44761 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 48952-1001 |
LT 26 March 1991. The premises in question are a house which had a garage constructed within the curtilage but 30-40 feet north of the house. Until 1980 the house and the garage were separately occupied, the latter as a storage depot or warehouse . The two occupiers were separately assessed for rates. In 1985 the whole property was purchased by B who made a proposal to merge the two entries on the valuation list . This was agreed. In 1988 D sold the house to the plaintiff S but retained the garage and the rest of the curtilage as a building plot. D applied to have the valuation list changed on the grounds that "the hereditament as described ... has now ceased to exist". The VO`s objection was dismissed on the grounds that as currently stated S would be paying rates on property he did not own or inhabit.