Shell-Mex and B P Ltd Ltd v Clayton (Valuation Officer) and Anor
[1956] 3 All ER 185(Decision by: Lord Oaksey)
Between: Shell-Mex and B P Ltd Ltd
And: Clayton (Valuation Officer) and Anor
Judges:
Viscount Simonds
Lord OakseyLord Morton of Henryton
Lord Tucker
Lord Keith of Avonholm
Subject References:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
RATES
De-rating
Freight-transport hereditament
Installations for unshipping and storing oil
Ratepayer selling agent for oil companies
Use of hereditament for dock purposes
Occupation and use of hereditament as part of a dock undertaking
Oil 'intended for the use of' the ratepayer
Legislative References:
Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 - (18 & 19 Geo 5 c 44), s 5(1) (c), (3), s 6(3)(b)
Case References:
Clyde Navigation Trustees v Inland Revenue, Inland Revenue v Kirkwall Assessor - [1930] SC 454; Digest Supp
Clyde Navigation Trustees v Glasgow Assessor - [1931] SC 400; Digest Supp
Judgment date: 25 July 1956
Decision by:
Lord Oaksey
My Lords, I have the misfortune to differ from your Lordships and from the Court of Appeal. In my opinion, the appellants' hereditament is wholly used for dock purposes as part of the dock undertaking of the British Transport Commission's undertaking at Hull, which is an undertaking whereof a substantial proportion of the volume of business is concerned with the shipping of merchandise not belonging to, or intended for, the use of the British Transport Commission. The hereditament is, therefore, a freight-transport hereditament within the meaning of s 5(1)(c) of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 and its net annual value must be apportioned between the occupation and user for transport purposes and for other purposes in accordance with s 6(1) of that Act.
If the hereditament were not used as a part of the dock undertaking of the British Transport Commission it would not, in my opinion, be a freight-transport hereditament, because a substantial proportion of the volume of its business as a dock undertaking is not concerned with the shipping of merchandise not belonging to the appellants. In my opinion, the words "merchandise ... belonging to or intended for the use of the undertakers" are intended to apply to merchandise belonging to, or used by, the undertakers in their capacity as a dock undertaking and not as merchants for the sale of the merchandise. That the appellants' hereditament is occupied and used partly for dock purposes is clear, and it appears to me also clear that it is occupied and used as part of the dock undertaking of the British Transport Commission at Hull. That undertaking by its two jetties enables the appellants to import oil into works leased to the appellants by the undertaking and transport the oil from those works to the barge berth from which it is transported to purchasers in other parts of the country. Proviso (a) to s 6(3) contemplates that hereditaments can be let out for transport purposes and, if occupied and used for such purposes, are to be regarded as freight-transport hereditaments, and it seems to me, therefore, that the lease by the British Transport Commission to the appellants of the hereditament which is capable of separate assessment and is actually occupied and used for transport purposes creates a freight-transport hereditament. The broad distinction which the statute appears to me to make is between transporting and warehousing. If a hereditament is let out as a freight-transport hereditament and so as to be capable of separate assessment and is actually used for transportation and not for warehousing, it was not, in my opinion, intended to be rateable.