BY ONE JUDGMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 13, 15 July 1936, Page 4

BY ONE JUDGMENT

17,000 DISPUTES SETTLED

HOUSE OF LORDS RULING

No fewer than 17,000 similar disputes were stated to depend upon a judgment given in the House of Lords recently (says the "Daily Telegraph"). The judgment decided that a bank, shops, bookstalls, show-cases, etc., at Victoria Station, and portions of a goods yard at Beckenham. Junction used by builders* merchants and others should be separately assessed for rating purposes, and not regarded as parts of the railway undertaking.

It was given in an appeal from a decision of the Railway and Canal Commission to the effect that the premises in question were not let out so as to be capable of separate assessment, and .that therefore they were "parts'" of the railway hereditament within the meaning of the-Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930.

The appellants were the City of Westminster and the County Valuation Committee of Kent, and the respondents were the Southern Railway Company, Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son, and the Railway Assessment Authority.

The matter was decided by Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Macmillan, and Lord Wright.-

'■■ Lord Wright, delivering : judgment allowing 'the "appeal, .-said'the purpose oi the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, was to establish a single valuation Of the railway undertaking as a whole in place of the old prac-: tice of valuing each hereditament separately. ■ . . ERECTED BY TENANT. Dealing with the bank and various shops, offices, and other premises at Victoria Station, apart, from Smith's bookstalls, Lord Wright said that all those premises seemed to be capable oi. separate occupation. The railway company, it was said, had;'reserved such control that their occupation was paramount, and, indeed, they were bound to do so to fulfil their statutory, duty .of working the railway, ■.■•.". ■:.. ■'■ ..'•.,. 33iit the restrictions by the railway "company upon the tenants did not in themselves-save^the tenants from being rateable it they were .occupiers^ in other respects. "" : They could find nothing in the agreement with the railway company that afforded any reason to hold, that the tenants were not rateable- ; Dealing with Smith's bookstalls, Lord Wright said he thought that, on principle, .they were so let out as to be capable of .separate assessment. They were premises of considerable size, occupying definite areas which they had occupied for a long time without being! moved. It was true that the railway company '.reserved power to change the site, but they very rarely exercised that power. , It was said that it was hard for Smith's to have to pay rates when they entered into a contract for 31 years on the basis of ah exemption which they had enjoyed since 1882 or earlier. But;-when they made that contract in September, 1929, nine months before the Act was passed, it was clearly known that railway rating was to be put on: a new basis. I SHOWCASES LIABLE. Dealing with the showcases, Lord Wright^ said that a special question arose regarding them by reason of the Advertising Stations (Rating Act), 1889. That^Act provided that, where land was temporarily or permanently used for the exhibition of advertisements or for the erection of hoardings or other structures used for the exhibition of advertisements, but not otherwise occupied, the owner should be deemed to be in beneficial occupation of the land and shoujd be rateable oh it. , . He thought that those showcases were occupied by their owners by means of the goods which they exhibited, and he saw no distinction in principle between them and the other premises. . ' ' ■' .- : Regarding, the premises at Beckenham Junction, Lord Wright said they were on specific and delineated sites, and were .capable of separate occupation just as much as the shops at Victoria. •

The appeal was accordingly allowed, with costs.