British Car Auctions Ltd T/A Blackbushe Airport v Ken I Hazell (VO)

Decision date: 28 April 2014

Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 164 (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 the rateable value of Blackbushe Airport (effective 23 December 2005) under the contractor's basis. The tribunal held that the modern substitute must reflect the hereditament's actual use (rebus sic stantibus), fixed a substitute runway of 1,335 m by 30 m with specified taxiways included/excluded, applied allowances (including 50% superfluity on paved areas and a 30% stage 5 end allowance) and determined a final RV of £82,000, with the Valuation Officer ordered to pay the appellant's 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

The contractor's test requires a modern substitute closely reflecting the actual use of the hereditament; choosing a substitute that creates large end allowances indicates it is inappropriate. Applied valuation adjustments (e.g. 50% superfluity on paved areas, site area and land value determinations, and specified age/obsolescence and end allowances) flowed from treating the substitute consistently with that use.

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 Rating Manual guidance is useful but not law; stage 5 allowances should be applied objectively yet sympathetically with operational knowledge; adjacent separately-rated businesses may be relevant only to the extent they generate additional traffic without causing double counting; and procedural difficulties between experts can justify interim directions and reconvening.