Walsh and another v Valuation Officer
Cottage standing in curtilage of main house – No residential use since 1982 – Owner appealing against separate listing of each property for council tax purposes – Whether Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 applicable to property appurtenant to main dwelling – Whether cottage a self contained unit for purpose of order – Appeal dismissed
In 1981 the appellant taxpayers, a married couple, purchased the Old Rectory in Burgate, Norfolk, together with its ancillary buildings. The property included Rectory Cottage, a former farm building standing some 25 yds from the main house, which many years earlier had been converted into premises suitable for housing domestic servants. Some months after the purchase the occupiers of the cottage, who had once worked for the previous owner, vacated the cottage. Thereafter the appellants used the cottage solely for storing sundry domestic items not required for everyday use. The house and cottage had at all times been listed as a single hereditament for rating purposes, and had initially been similarly listed for the purpose of chargeability to council tax.
In August 1984, however, the appellants received separate demands in respect of the house and cottage, these being respectively charged under bands G and B. In subsequent correspondence the council contended that separate listing was required by the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 549) (the order) whereby each “self-contained unit” contained in an otherwise single property must be treated as a “dwelling” for the purpose of section 3 (the section) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Having failed to resist the council’s contention before the Suffolk Valuation Tribunal, the appellants appealed to the High Court, arguing: (i) that the order was incapable of applying to premises appurtenant to a main dwelling; alternatively (ii) that the cottage was not a self-contained unit for the purpose of the order.
Cottage standing in curtilage of main house – No residential use since 1982 – Owner appealing against separate listing of each property for council tax purposes – Whether Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 applicable to property appurtenant to main dwelling – Whether cottage a self contained unit for purpose of order – Appeal dismissed In 1981 the appellant taxpayers, a married couple, purchased the Old Rectory in Burgate, Norfolk, together with its ancillary buildings. The property included Rectory Cottage, a former farm building standing some 25 yds from the main house, which many years earlier had been converted into premises suitable for housing domestic servants. Some months after the purchase the occupiers of the cottage, who had once worked for the previous owner, vacated the cottage. Thereafter the appellants used the cottage solely for storing sundry domestic items not required for everyday use. The house and cottage had at all times been listed as a single hereditament for rating purposes, and had initially been similarly listed for the purpose of chargeability to council tax.
In August 1984, however, the appellants received separate demands in respect of the house and cottage, these being respectively charged under bands G and B. In subsequent correspondence the council contended that separate listing was required by the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 549) (the order) whereby each “self-contained unit” contained in an otherwise single property must be treated as a “dwelling” for the purpose of section 3 (the section) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Having failed to resist the council’s contention before the Suffolk Valuation Tribunal, the appellants appealed to the High Court, arguing: (i) that the order was incapable of applying to premises appurtenant to a main dwelling; alternatively (ii) that the cottage was not a self-contained unit for the purpose of the order.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The power to make the order derived from subsection (5) of the section which, when applicable, derogated from the general definition of “dwelling” given by subsection (1), which incorporated the notion of a single rateable hereditament from the otherwise repealed General Rate Act 1967. Disregarding the order, it was common ground that the cottage (a) formed part of the same dwelling as the house; (b) being an appurtenance and/or private premises for domestic storage, could only be a dwelling in so far as it formed part of the house: see subsection (4). The appellant had contended that because subsection (4) was not stated to be expressly subject to subsection (5), the latter could not apply. However the presence of such words was not necessary, it being enough that the main definition in subsection (1) was expressed to be “subject to the following provisions of this section”.
2 The order defined a “self contained unit” as a building or part of a building which has been constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. Given that the building had once been so adapted, and was still capable of being so used, it was immaterial that the appellants had used it for non-residential purposes since 1982.
The appellant, Mr Walsh, appeared in person; Timothy Mould (instructed by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue) appeared for the respondent.
