Pall Mall Investments (London) Ltd v Gloucester City Council

Pall Mall Investments (London) Ltd v Gloucester City Council

The law does not prohibit occupation of the properties merely because occupation would result in a breach of health and safety duties; only an express or necessarily implied legal prohibition suffices for exemption under Regulation 4(c). The appellant failed to show such a prohibition, so the exemption does not apply.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Pall Mall Investments (London) Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Gloucester City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated (administrative) / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Domestic Rates, Unoccupied Property Exemption, Statutory Interpretation, Health and Safety at Work, Liability Orders
Local Government Law Rating and Valuation Administrative Law Non Domestic Rates Unoccupied Property Exemption Statutory Interpretation Health and Safety at Work Liability Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pall Mall Investments (London) Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Gloucester City Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated (administrative) / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of a statutory provision or notice directly prohibiting occupation suffices for exemption under Regulation 4(c) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008
  2. 2 Whether the possibility of partial occupation for storage use precludes exemption under Regulation 4(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The law does not prohibit occupation of the properties merely because occupation would result in a breach of health and safety duties; only an express or necessarily implied legal prohibition suffices for exemption under Regulation 4(c). The appellant failed to show such a prohibition, so the exemption does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed