[2023] UKUT 168 (LC)

Paragraph 1(b) sets out a condition precedent: before there can be a new apportionment it must be the case that “the system or method of rating buildings and premises in operation at the commencement of the term” is “abrogated or changed” so as to make that method of apportionment “inoperable or manifestly inequitable”. The first two of the appellant’s grounds of appeal challenged the FTT’s findings about that condition precedent.

At the hearing of the appeal Mr Grundy KC for the respondents conceded that the condition precedent has been satisfied. The abolition of domestic rating means that the system in operation at the commencement of the lease has been changed or abrogated so that the method of apportionment in the lease is inoperable. That seems to me obviously correct. Counsel for both parties agreed that I need say no more about the first two grounds of appeal. The decision of the FTT about that condition precedent is set aside and the Tribunal’s decision substituted that the condition precedent has been satisfied.

That means that the appeal is now focussed on the second and alternative limb of the FTT’s decision, made on the usual “in case we are wrong” basis: in case the FTT’s decision about the condition precedent was wrong, the FTT went on to decide whether the appellant’s proposed new apportionment method, devised by Mr Forrester, was “just and equitable” and decided that it was not. The appellant appeals that decision.