![[2024] UKUT 264 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The issues
The issues
It is common ground that each of the barrister’s rooms in the Jockey’s Fields premises is sufficiently identifiable as a unit of property to be capable in law of forming a separate hereditament if the facts justify that conclusion. It is also common ground that the rateable values for the individual rooms proposed by the appellant are appropriate.
The parties agreed that the sole issue in the appeal is whether:
as the appellant contends, the seven barristers’ rooms in the Jockey’s Fields premises should be shown in the non-domestic rating list as six separate hereditaments, on the ground that on 1 April 2017 (the material date) they were in the sole or paramount occupation of six individual barristers; or
as the Valuation Officer contends, the Jockey’s Fields premises should be shown as a single hereditament, on the ground that as at the material date either the appellant as Head of Chambers, or the Chambers management committee, or the four members of chambers who held the leases on behalf of all members, or all members for the time being, were in sole or paramount occupation of the whole, including the seven barristers’ rooms.
We were told that the parties are also in dispute about the status of the barristers’ rooms at Bedford Row and it was suggested by Mr Trompeter KC in his written argument that we should make findings of fact relevant to those premises. That suggestion was not pursued in oral argument. The only appeal before us concerns the Jockey’s Fields premises and we will confine our consideration to those premises.