header-logo header-logo

09 October 2014
Issue: 7625 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Aero Club business rate reversal

Upper Tribunal overturns President’s landmark decision

A landmark decision on business rates has been overturned by the Lands Chamber (Upper Tribunal). 

In the case, which involved West London Aero Club, the Valuation Tribunal had held that once it had given its decision on the rateable value, that value couldn’t be amended by a valuation officer (VO) even where the officer believes he is correcting an error (regarding the size of a hangar, in this case). The airfield relied on the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel to argue that the officer was not entitled to ignore or impugn the tribunal’s decision.

Ruling in the airfield’s favour, the Tribunal President, Graham Zellick QC considered that “to countenance the valuation officer’s argument would be subversive of the rule of law, an affront to justice, repugnant to the statutory framework”. On appeal, however, the Lands Chamber has reversed the President’s decision ( Valuation Office Agency v West London Aero Club [2014] UKUT 0291 (LC)). It held that res judicata did not apply and a valuation officer can alter a rating list when he becomes aware of a material change in circumstances because he is under a duty to maintain an accurate list. Giving his judgment, Martin Rodger QC said: “A mistake of fact made by the Valuation Tribunal need not be perpetuated.”

Richard Jones, a property consultant who advised the airfield, commented that the Upper Tribunal decision was based “purely on the legalities” of the VO’s actions and powers.

“It also took into account a previous Valuation Tribunal ruling and the impact of this on the VO’s ability to alter the 2005 rating list. However, no consideration was given to the correctness or otherwise of the confirmed overall rateable value in light of comparable properties, nor to any quantum value reduction in relation to the increased areas of the hangars,” he added.

Issue: 7625 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll