JANE A BERRY (VALUATION OFFICER) v ICELAND FOODS LIMITED
Decision date: 14 January 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 14 (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
The case concerned whether a bespoke air handling system (AHS) serving an Iceland retail warehouse fell within Class 2 exemption for plant “used mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes.” The Tribunal held that “trade processes” should be read with “manufacturing operations” and ordinarily denotes activity effecting a change of state, so the AHS (serving display/storage/environment in a retail warehouse) was not within the exemption and is rateable. The Tribunal decapitalised the agreed AHS capital cost at 5% using the contractor’s basis (with adjustments to avoid double counting), fixed the hereditament’s rateable value at £104,000 from 1 April 2010, and ordered Iceland to pay the Valuation Officer’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 expression “trade processes” in the Class 2 exemption is to be read with “manufacturing operations” and, in ordinary cases, denotes activities effecting a transition of state; providing storage, display or an environment for goods in retail premises does not ordinarily amount to a trade process. Where the contractor’s basis is used to value part only of a hereditament, the statutory decapitalisation rate prescribed in the 1989 Regulations applies, and valuers must adjust to avoid double counting of services.
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 criticises expert practice where experts fail to produce joint statements setting out agreed and disputed technical matters and reasons for disagreement, describing such failures as unhelpful; and notes that freehold investment yields and property investment comparables have limited utility when amortising leasehold plant and machinery.