ATOS IT Services Ltd v Fylde Borough Council

ATOS IT Services Ltd v Fylde Borough Council

A person is not liable for non-domestic rates on a hereditament unless in exclusive occupation of the whole; occupation of part, where other parts are occupied by third parties, does not suffice. Atos was not in exclusive occupation and is entitled to repayment of the disputed sum. The County Court has jurisdiction to order repayment where the list is not challenged.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: ATOS IT Services Limited; Respondent/claimant: Fylde Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Domestic Rates, Rateable Occupation, Restitution of Overpaid Tax, Jurisdiction of County Court, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Administrative Law Non Domestic Rates Rateable Occupation Restitution of Overpaid Tax Jurisdiction of County Court Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ATOS IT Services Limited

Appellant/defendant

Fylde Borough Council

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether occupation of part of a hereditament constitutes rateable occupation for liability to non-domestic rates under the Local Government Finance Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the County Court has jurisdiction to order repayment of overpaid rates where the list is not challenged
  3. 3 Whether the billing authority is obliged to collect rates in the absence of exclusive occupation

Ratio Decidendi

A person is not liable for non-domestic rates on a hereditament unless in exclusive occupation of the whole; occupation of part, where other parts are occupied by third parties, does not suffice. Atos was not in exclusive occupation and is entitled to repayment of the disputed sum. The County Court has jurisdiction to order repayment where the list is not challenged.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Council's applications for summary judgment and strike out dismissed
  • Atos entitled in principle to repayment of £164,159.78, subject to further determination of defences