BMC Properties and Management Ltd v David Jackson (VO)
Decision date: 11 March 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 93 (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 effective date for an alteration to add an omitted hereditament (8 Collingham Road) to the 2005 non-domestic rating list. The issue was whether regulation 14(2) requires the effective date to be the date the underlying change (use) first occurred or can be the date the list was compiled if the list was inaccurate when compiled. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the Valuation Tribunal and the Valuation Officer that the effective date could be the compilation date, 1 April 2005, and dismissed the appellant's appeal, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent'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 ratio is that, for regulation 14(2) of the 2009 Regulations, "the day on which the circumstances giving rise to the alteration first occurred" can properly include the date on which an inaccurate list was compiled; accordingly an alteration to add an omitted hereditament may take effect from the list compilation date (here 1 April 2005). Readings that would make the effective date depend on later awareness by parties are to be avoided as uncertain and anomalous.
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 observed that using the date the Valuation Officer or parties became aware of an inaccuracy as the triggering circumstance would introduce uncertainty and caprice, and that the statutory scheme permits retrospective correction of lists subject to the limits in regulation 14(8); it also noted commercial purchasers are expected to make routine enquiries about rating status. These remarks were given as explanatory or persuasive points rather than essential holdings.