Share it

On appeal from: [2018] EWCA Civ 2472

These appeals concern the treatment for rating purposes of ATMs situated in supermarkets or shops owned and operated by the retailers. The issues raised by the case were whether the sites of the ATMS are to be properly identified as separate hereditaments from the stores and if so who was in rateable occupation of the separate hereditaments. Hereditament is defined in the General Rate Act 1967, s 115 (1) as “property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item on the valuation list”.

At first instance the Valuation Tribunal for England held that all of the ATMs were situated on hereditaments which were rateably occupied separately from the host stores. This was overturned by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) which held that that, save for the moveable ATM, all of the ATMs were situated on hereditaments separate from the host stores; but that only the external ATMs were rateably occupied separately from the host stores. This was overturned on appeal by the Court of Appeal which held that none of the ATMs were rateably occupied separately from the host stores.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeals. It held that the Upper Tribunal had been entitled to find that there should be no difficulty in defining the boundaries of fixed ATMs so as to satisfy the geographical test for self-containment, with the exception is the moveable ATM, which, as they found, had the qualities of “impermanence and mobility”. There was sufficient support for the conclusion that the internal ATMs remained in the occupation of the retailers. External ATMs were to be treated the same as internal ones.

For judgment, please download: [2020] UKSC 21

For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary

For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing please visit: Supreme Court website, 11 March morning and afternoon session and 12 March morning and afternoon session.

To watch the judgment summary, please visit: Supreme Court website, 20 May 2020 judgment summary.