Separate Floors: Overrated?

Further to the article "Who uses the stairs anyway?" in the Summer edition of QIA, the Supreme Court have now issued their judgement in relation to the Woolway v Mazars case.

In Woolway (VO) v Mazars LLP [2015] UKSC 53 the Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and ruled that two geographically separate floors of the same office building in the same occupation, must be treated as separate rateable hereditaments. This decision goes against the occupier, who had applied to merge the floors as one hereditament for the purposes of the rating list. The detrimental consequence of the Mazars decision for tenants is that two separate hereditaments are likely to produce a higher rates liability than one large hereditament.

Local authority rates are the oldest tax in continuous existence in England having originally been introduced in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The core principle underlying the assessment of these rates remains the same today in that they are a tax on property and not persons or businesses. Each property is individually identified in the rating list and assessed separately.

The Mazars case challenged the ordinary practices of valuers, which was where different parts of an office building are occupied by the same occupier, the property will be a single property on the rating list if the floors are contiguous, and separate properties if they are not. The Supreme Court's decision was that it was 'artificial' and 'unfair' to treat two self-contained floors in common occupation in the same building differently depending on whether or not they were on consecutive levels. If each floor is self-contained from the other, then the two floors should be treated as a single property for business rates.

The Court went on further to clarify that without a communicating internal staircase or lift passing between the two consecutive floors, the consecutive floors would be physically separated in much the same way as two non-consecutive floors of a building. Where the only access to premises occupied together but on two separate floors of a building is from a public part of the building, such as a lift located in the common parts, the decision in Mazars means that the premises are likely to be assessed separately for ratings...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT