MARTYN LAMB v GO OUTDOORS LTD v GO OUTDOORS LTD
Decision date: 17 July 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 366 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned the rateable value (RV) of GO Outdoors' Stockton retail warehouse as at the 2010 valuation date. The tribunal treated the actual letting agreed close to the valuation date (devalued for incentives) as strong evidence, considered comparable lettings and assessments but found no established "tone of the list", and fixed RV at £275,000 from 1 April 2010. Each party was to bear its own 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: medium
Where a letting of the subject hereditament is agreed close to the antecedent valuation date and reflects the statutory assumptions it is powerful evidence of rateable value, but it must be weighed alongside comparable lettings and assessments; whether a "tone of the list" exists is a factual question determined immediately before the hearing, and absence of a settled pattern reduces the weight to be given to assessment comparators. Mezzanine space should be valued according to its actual use (sales/staff/stock) rather than by applying a fixed proportion of the main space.
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 indicated that market deterioration after the valuation date may justify cautiously extrapolating later open-market rents back to the valuation date; comparisons between different rating lists are of limited weight where many assessments remain subject to appeal or market conditions have changed; and heavy incentives require devaluation of the agreed rent but do not entirely negate the evidential value of a contemporaneous letting.