Case Law

Question 1

Lotus & Delta v Culverwell

Answer 1

Hierarchy of Evidence:

1. Rent as a starting point.
2. Closer rent agreements hold more weight.
3. Comparable rents indicate actual rent.
4. Comparable assessments show value.
5. Value opinion based on all evidence, weighted by rent nature and comparables.
6. If no comparable rents, consider other assessments; actual rents are crucial.

Question 2

Jackson V Canary Wharf

Answer 2

No continuous program of works are needed for a property to be considered “under construction”

Question 3

Mazzards Case

Answer 3

4 rules of a hereditament:
- Definable
- Single occupation
- Singe use
- Single geographical unit

Question 4

Newbigin (VO) V Monk

Answer 4

VO argued that a property must be in an uneconomic state of repair in order to be zero rated as shown in schedule 6 para 2(1)(b) of the LGFA’s assumptions.

However it was found that this assumption did not extend to items that have been removed and therefore if found to be unable of beneficial occupation then the property must be removed from the rating list

Question 5

Cardtronics v Sykes

Answer 5

Exclusive occupation:

Supreme court ruled that ATM’s capable of separate hereditaments however due to general control they are in rateable occupation of the host

Question 6

Scottish and Newcastle v Williams

Answer 6

Determine the value to the occupier:

2 limbs considered when valuing things as they stand (rebus sic stantibus)

1) Physical limb: only minor alterations can be considered. Works must be taken in the context of the hereditament

2) Mode and category: property can only be used for purposes within the same mode and category of occupation.