Law Report: Assessing agricultural occupation: Hambleton District Council v Buxted Poultry Ltd - House of Lords (Lord Templeman, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley), 10 December 1992
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.For a building to qualify as an agricultural building, so as to be exempt from rates under section 26 of the General Rate Act 1967, on the grounds that it was 'occupied together with' an agricultural building or agricultural land, within the meaning of section 26(4) of the 1967 Act and section 2(1) of the Rating Act 1971, it had to be occupied together with that building or land so as to form in a real sense a single agricultural unit.
The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by Buxted Poultry Ltd from the decision of the Court of Appeal ((1992) 1 WLR 330), allowing appeals by the rating authority, Hambleton District Council, from the decision of the Lands Tribunal and of the North Yorkshire Valuation Court, deleting certain entries from the valuation list.
T P E Curry QC and Malcolm Davis-White (Stephens & Scown, Exeter) for Buxted; Christopher Cochrane QC and Simon Bird (Sharpe Pritchard, for Colin Spencer, Northallerton) for the council.
LORD SLYNN said Buxted owned and occupied 67 poultry breeding and rearing farms variously situated between a quarter of a mile and 120 miles from a factory where it processed and packed turkeys and chickens for human consumption.
The question was whether the factory was 'occupied together with' buildings used to keep or breed livestock within section 2(1)(b) of the 1971 Act. For one building to be 'occupied together with' another, both had to be in the same occupation, and the activities carried on in both had to be jointly controlled or managed, at the same time.
But that was not sufficient. Nor was any geographical test conclusive, though the distance between the buildings was a relevant consideration. Nor was it sufficient that the buildings or land were all part of the same business enterprise.
What was necessary was to show that the two buildings, or the building and the agricultural land, were occupied together so as to form in a real sense a single agricultural unit.
It was impossible so to find in this case. The factory should be rated.
LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD OLIVER, LORD GOFF and LORD MUSTILL agreed.
Paul Magrath, Barrister
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments