KEN BAINBRIDGE (VO) v BOLDFIELD LIMITED (1) GREENFIELD SOFTWARE LIMITED (2)
Decision date: 9 June 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 295 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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 the correct rateable values for Units A and D, Trinity Court, Buckingway Business Park, with the sole issue whether the VTE was right to adopt £137 per sqm for main office space. The Upper Tribunal preferred the Valuation Officer's evidence and found the VTE erred in disregarding comparable rents and settled list assessments, setting Unit A RV at £25,750 (effective 10 June 2013) and Unit D RV at £51,500 (effective 23 July 2010). No order as to costs.
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
Where reliable rental comparables and a series of consistent settled list assessments establish a "tone of the list," that evidence can legitimately determine rateable value and may outweigh a tribunal's arbitrary reduction for local oversupply; additionally, if a development existed and was marketed at the antecedent valuation date, subsequent changes in occupation at the material day do not by themselves justify departing from AVD-derived rental levels absent cogent contrary evidence.
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 observed that adjustments or concessions applicable in different markets (e.g. City of London Grade A offices or Dunstable retail) do not automatically apply to a distinct local market. It also noted, as a point of evidence ranking, that lease renewals can in principle be placed ahead of rent reviews, though the strict pecking order is of limited significance where evidence comprises a mix of renewals and reviews.