The appeal of Lucy Formela-Osbourne

Decision date: 29 May 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 200 (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 Severn Trent's Stoneleigh Training Academy qualified as an "educational hereditament" under the 1989 Regulations and therefore attracted the lower decapitalisation rate of 2.6% when valued on the contractor's basis. The Upper Tribunal held it did not meet the statutory definition (no evidence it was maintained/assisted by an LEA, a designated further/higher education institution, or provided by a not‑for‑profit body) and substituted the standard 4.4% decapitalisation rate, giving a rateable value of £191,000; the Valuation Officer's appeal succeeded.

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: high

The decisive legal conclusion is that adaptation or construction for the provision of further education alone does not make a hereditament an "educational hereditament" under the Regulations; the hereditament must be "wholly or mainly used" for the purposes of an institution that satisfies the statutory criteria (eg maintained/assisted by an LEA, part of higher/further education, or provided by a not‑for‑profit body), and absent evidence of such institutional connection the lower decapitalisation rate does not apply.

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 noted that the outcome might have been different if the ratepayer had produced evidence that the Academy met the statutory institutional criteria; it also observed that a bare assertion that some non‑employees are trained there was insufficient to establish the required institutional connection.

Warning

- none

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML