DOUBLE MAXIM BREWERY LTD v JUDITH SMITH (VALUATION OFFICER)
Decision date: 23 March 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 78 (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 rateable value of Unit 1 Gadwall Road, a specialist brewery, and whether valuation should be by reference to local rental/settlement evidence, a contractor's test, or receipts/profits. The tribunal preferred local rental evidence and set a basic rate of £35.00/m2, excluded gantry and cold store from the 1 April 2010 valuation (they were installed later), reinstated a 3% end allowance, and applied the agreed 10% MCC flooding deduction from 1 October 2012. The resulting entries were RV £52,000 from 1 April 2010 and RV £48,500 from 1 October 2012; no costs were awarded.
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
Where sufficient local rental and settlement evidence exists, valuation for rating purposes should be carried out by reference to that local industrial tone rather than by contractor's test or receipts/profits approaches; plant or process items not part of the hereditament as would be assumed in a hypothetical vacant letting (and items installed after the material day) are to be excluded from the valuation at that material day.
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 judgment noted that a brewery is to be valued by reference to its mode or category of occupation (here, as a brewery) but that in practice this may align with local industrial values; and that a contractual headline rent subject to concessions or personalised grants should be treated with caution and accorded reduced weight as market evidence.