[2024] UKUT 304 (LC)

As I have found that Mr Bailey is in occupation of part it is therefore necessary to examine for the purposes of this appeal whether he is in rateable occupation. On the analysis in John Laing there are two occupiers of the point-to-point yard: the partnership and Mr Bailey. Which of the two should be the ratepayer can be unravelled by deciding which is in paramount occupation.

Control of the point-to-point yard rests with the tenant of the Farm who is in possession by reason of his tenancy but who shares occupation of the whole of the Farm with his partners for the purposes of the partnership business. There is no subtenancy and Mr Bailey can be required to leave without notice. He cannot exclude Toby or the other partners and in fact is reliant on them for the maintenance of the buildings he occupies. Toby has retained all of the rights his farm tenancy confers on him and enjoys them together with his fellow partners. The partners also share in any profits of the point-to-point operation. It follows that Mr Bailey is not in rateable occupation of the point-to-point yard and there are no grounds for assessing it separately from the remainder of the Farm occupied by the partners.