Charles Waters v Wayne Cox (Valuation Officer)

Charles Waters v Wayne Cox (Valuation Officer)

The receipts and expenditure method is appropriate; FMT should be based on actual receipts for the year preceding the antecedent valuation date; manager's salary is not included as working expense for a small/medium business; equipment hire is included as working expense; Taylor Wimpey reserved rights are not sufficiently proximate or value significant to affect valuation; tenant's share set at 68% of divisible balance; comparative analysis supports the outcome; appeal dismissed as farm is under-assessed.

Parties
Appellant: Charles Waters; Respondent: Wayne Cox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Receipts and Expenditure Method, Rateable Value, Hereditament, Reserved Rights, Tenant's Share, Manager's Salary, Equipment Hire
Rating Law Valuation Property Law Receipts and Expenditure Method Rateable Value Hereditament Reserved Rights Tenant's Share +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Waters

Appellant

Wayne Cox

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate fair maintainable trade (FMT) for valuation
  2. 2 Inclusion of manager's salary in working expenses
  3. 3 Treatment of equipment hire in valuation

Ratio Decidendi

The receipts and expenditure method is appropriate; FMT should be based on actual receipts for the year preceding the antecedent valuation date; manager's salary is not included as working expense for a small/medium business; equipment hire is included as working expense; Taylor Wimpey reserved rights are not sufficiently proximate or value significant to affect valuation; tenant's share set at 68% of divisible balance; comparative analysis supports the outcome; appeal dismissed as farm is under-assessed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Rateable value for Finkley Down Farm remains at £100,000 for the 2017 List.
  • No adjustment for manager's salary or Taylor Wimpey reserved rights.