Richie Roberts (Valuation Officer) v Backhouse Jones Limited

Decision date: 10 February 2020

Neutral citation: [2020] UKUT 38 (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 addressed whether two first‑floor office suites occupied by the same ratepayer but separated by a landlord‑controlled 1.32m fire‑escape corridor are "contiguous" under s.64 as amended by the 2018 Act, so as to form a single hereditament. The Tribunal held that the 2018 "space proviso" applies only to spaces within a common enclosing structure (walls/ceilings) and does not treat a corridor between separate walls as creating contiguity. The Valuation Officer's decision to merge the entries was overturned and the separate entries reinstated.

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

Contiguity under the amended provision requires either (a) a common wall/fence/means of enclosure or (b) direct floor/ceiling relationship between consecutive storeys; the "space proviso" only qualifies spaces that lie within such an enclosing structure (eg voids or compartments within shared walls or floors). A corridor between distinct enclosing structures does not itself create contiguity and so does not convert separately enclosed suites into a single hereditament.

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 suggests, as obiter, that treating intervening corridors or spaces between distinct enclosing structures as qualifying "space" would produce outcomes beyond the legislative intent to restore pre‑Woolway practice, and that mere service connections (eg pipes or conduits) are unlikely to defeat self‑containment or establish contiguity.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial repetition of passages.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML