In Monk the Supreme Court had to determine whether a commercial building in the process of redevelopment had to be valued for the purposes of rating as if it was still a useable office?
The principle issue was whether the property should be rated having regard to the physical condition of the property at the valuation date (“the Reality Principle”) or in accordance with the statutory assumption that the property was in a state of reasonable repair when valued for rating purposes as set out in para. 2(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as amended (“the Repairing Assumption”)?
The property was a vacant first floor office space that was being redeveloped into separate offices at the date of valuation. The appellant, Monk, argued that as the property was incapable of beneficial occupation, it should be categorised as a “building undergoing reconstruction” for the purposes of rates calculation.
The Court of Appeal considered that the works constituted works of repair rather than improvement, and accordingly should not attract a reduction in rates. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the Reality Principle had not been displaced by the Repairing Assumption. In the context of a property undergoing development, the logical prior question was whether the property was capable of beneficial occupation. The Repairing Assumption was not engaged in answering that question. It applied to matters affecting the physical state of the premises, and did not require a property to be valued as though its mode or category of occupation were otherwise than they were in reality.
To assist valuers in reaching decisions, the Court considered the correct approach was:
An objective test was to be applied by valuation officers when ascertaining whether premises were undergoing reconstructions rather than being in a state of disrepair. However, regard could be had to the programme of works being undertaken at the premises.
This decision should come as welcome news to commercial developers and property owners and act as an incentive to redevelop.
Elizabeth Dwomoh / 22nd Mar 2017
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.