Michael Porter (Valuation Officer) v Trustees of Gladman Sipps
Decision date: 20 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 204 (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 whether 19 speculative office units were hereditaments on 1 May 2006 for rating purposes. The tribunal and Upper Tribunal held they were not, because they lacked features (small power outlets, tea points, full-height partitioning and associated works) which a reasonable occupier would require before beneficial occupation and which, when provided, would form part of the hereditament. The Valuation Officer's appeal was dismissed.
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
A building is a hereditament only if it is ready for occupation for the purpose for which it was designed; where works remaining at the material date are ones which must be provided before occupation and which, when provided, would form part of the occupied hereditament, the building is not rateable. The absence of such features therefore prevents inclusion in the rating list unless the statutory completion notice procedure has been used.
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 observes that the statutory completion notice procedure is the appropriate mechanism to determine deemed completion dates where fitting-out remains, and that items which are purely tenant's chattels or de minimis need not prevent a building being a hereditament; these questions depend on fact and degree.