Avison Young Ltd v David Jackson (VO)

Decision date: 25 February 2020

Neutral citation: [2020] UKUT 58 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned whether regulation 38(7) of the VTE Regulations permits the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) to limit an alteration to the rating list to the specific period during which temporary works rendered a hereditament incapable of beneficial occupation. The UT upheld the VTE’s decision that the regulation is broad enough to allow limiting a nil valuation to the dates the premises were unoccupiable (1 Sept 2014–23 Jan 2015) and dismissed the appeal.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

Regulation 38(7) confers a discretionary power on the VTE to order an alteration to the rating list for such period as reflects the duration of the circumstances giving rise to the alteration; that power can be exercised to limit an alteration to the period when temporary works rendered a hereditament unoccupiable.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal indicated (without deciding) that the appropriate appellate standard for reviewing discretionary VTE decisions under reg 38(7) need not be resolved for this case, and observed that an appellant could have sought to protect its position by proposing an appropriate rateable value after completion of works.