Catherine Bower (Valuation Officer) v The Valuation Tribunal for England

Catherine Bower (Valuation Officer) v The Valuation Tribunal for England

The 2018 Regulations provided an extension of time for proposals only for ratepayers whose legal position was changed by the PICO Act. The ratepayer’s proposal met the criteria for a merger but not for a reconstitution into three hereditaments. The reconstitution sought by the Valuation Officer was not provided for by the amending legislation, was out of time, and could not be ratified by the Tribunal. The VTE correctly limited its order to the merger as proposed.

Parties
Appellant (valuation Officer): Catherine Bower; Respondent (ratepayer): Oaklands Plastics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Determination on Written Representations
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Domestic Rating List, Alteration of Rating Lists, Jurisdiction of Valuation Tribunal, Scope of Proposals Under Rating Regulations
Rating and Valuation Local Government Law Non Domestic Rating List Alteration of Rating Lists Jurisdiction of Valuation Tribunal Scope of Proposals Under Rating Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Bower

Appellant (valuation Officer)

Oaklands Plastics Limited

Respondent (ratepayer)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Determination on Written Representations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a proposal under regulation 4(1)(k) of the 2009 Regulations can be used for a reconstitution (from two hereditaments to three) after the statutory window for alterations has closed, relying on the extended window provided by the 2018 Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the Valuation Tribunal for England had jurisdiction to order a reconstitution not expressly covered by the proposal.

Ratio Decidendi

The 2018 Regulations provided an extension of time for proposals only for ratepayers whose legal position was changed by the PICO Act. The ratepayer’s proposal met the criteria for a merger but not for a reconstitution into three hereditaments. The reconstitution sought by the Valuation Officer was not provided for by the amending legislation, was out of time, and could not be ratified by the Tribunal. The VTE correctly limited its order to the merger as proposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.