BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Lands Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Valuation Officer v Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Mills Charitable Foundation Ltd [2007] EWLands RA_45_2005 (18 December 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2007/RA_45_2005.html
Cite as: [2007] EWLands RA_45_2005

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


RA/45/2005
LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949
COSTS- rating appeal- £ 140,000 entry replaced by entry of £ nil by Valuation Tribunal -
appeal compromised at entry of £ 5,000- Valuation Officer’s claim for costs
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE ESSEX SOUTH
VALUATION TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN                      KEITH HALLIDAY (Valuation Officer)                     Appellant
and
WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER MILLS CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION LIMITED
                                             Respondent
Re: Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Mills,
Powdermill Lane,
Waltham Abbey,
EN9 1BN
Before: His Honour Judge Gilbart QC
Decision made on written representations procedure
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007
1

DECISION
1.   In this matter I am required to deal with the Appellant’s application for an order for costs
against the Respondent.
2.   The appeal related to an entry made in the rating list for the Waltham Abbey Royal
Gunpowder Mill Museum. Those premises contain many buildings in an historic complex
used for gunpowder manufacture since 1560. It contains 21 listed buildings (1 at Grade 1 and
7 at Grade 2*) and two thirds of it is a scheduled ancient monument. On 21st June 2002 the
Appellant Valuation Officer assessed the value as £ 140,000, and entered it on the rating list
accordingly. The Respondent argued for a value of £ 1.
3.   On 22nd July 2005, the Valuation Tribunal, in a reasoned decision, decided that the
correct figure was nil. On 3rd August 2005 the Appellant appealed to the Lands Tribunal on
the grounds that “ the decision is incorrect, insufficient and bad in law.” The Respondent filed
a Notice of Intention to respond, on the grounds that the decision was correct “ and on such
further or other grounds as may be adduced.”
4.   After that date, the Appellant sought various extensions of time for the filing of his
Statement of Case. Apparently he needed advice from a valuer. In December 2005 he stated
that his valuer would have reported to him in time for his statement of case to be filed “in two
months.” Then on 26th January 2006 he stated that he needed to take Counsel’s advice at two
conferences, and have a view, and would then be able to state his case. A further extension
was granted to 27th April. As at 12th April 2006 he was again seeking more time for his
Counsel to consider the matter, and stating that his counsel required sight of another
document from the Respondent. The Respondents consented to a further extension, which
was granted until 21st July 2006.
5.   After reminders from the Tribunal, and after the time for filing the Statement of Case had
expired, the Appellant sought yet another extension. On this occasion it was to allow for a
meeting to take place between experts, and to allow the Respondent’s valuer time to consult
the occupiers of other heritage sites. An extension was granted until 21st October 2006. It too
expired. On 1st November 2006, after a further reminder from the Tribunal, the Appellant
applied for a further extension.
6.   The Appellant now wrote to the Tribunal setting out his efforts since receiving advice
from Counsel in April 2006 (wrongly said to be 2005 in the letter) to get hold of a deed from
the Respondent. It set out his efforts to obtain it, and the apparent inability of the Respondent
and its advisers to understand his request. The time for filing the Statement was extended to
1st February 2007, but the Tribunal stated that it would not be extended again, save for
exceptional circumstances.
7.   On 22nd January 2007 the Appellant informed the Tribunal that the parties’ valuers had
reached agreement on the value to be given to the hereditament.
8.   There was then further delay due to the illness of the Appellant and Respondent’s
respective solicitors and the movement between firms of the Respondent’s surveyor. On 2nd
April 2007 the Tribunal, pursuant to Rules 35 and 38, required the Appellant to apply to stay
the proceedings or extend time. A stay was then granted by consent.
2

9.   By 24th September 2007 the parties had agreed terms, whereby the entry was amended to
one of £ 5,000. An order was made accordingly.
10. By letter of 19th October 2007, the Appellant seeks an award of costs against the
Respondent limited to
a.   The costs of commencing the appeal and attending to interlocutory matters such
as extensions of time;
b.   The costs of instructing an expert valuer as the result of counsel’s advice, and of
his negotiating and agreeing a rateable value with the Respondent’s expert
valuer;
c.   The costs of agreeing and obtaining the Order of 24th September 2007;
d.   The costs of making the application for costs.
11. There is no application for costs by the Respondent, nor any response to the application
for costs.
12. In determining this application I have had regard to Rule 52 of the Lands Tribunal Rules,
and to section 22 of the Lands Tribunal Practice Direction.
13. The striking feature of this case is that the valuation officer argued for an entry of no less
than £140,000, and is now asserting that he is a successful appellant when the entry has been
agreed at £5,000. That change of heart by the Appellant has occurred in large measure
because the Appellant has now sought the advice of Counsel and obtained proper valuation
evidence. He has also obtained details of documents relating to the premises. In my judgment
all of that should have been done before the contest took place in the Valuation Tribunal.
Further, it took from August 2005 to April 2006 to get Counsel’s final advice. The conduct of
the appeal was on any view dilatory until then. I am prepared to accept that the Respondent
joined in the dilatoriness after that. The appeal entered in August 2005 was patently not based
on any case of substance which has been pursued since. Had it been so, the grounds of appeal
would not have been so generalised, and the Statement of Case filed on time. What has
happened is that the Appellant has reassessed his whole approach in the light of advice from
Counsel.
14. It follows that I consider this to be a wholly inappropriate case for an award of costs
against the Respondent. For completeness I should add that I find the idea extraordinary that
the Appellant should have his costs of the appeal before he had obtained proper advice, or
that he should have his costs of obtaining a consent order settling the dispute.
HH Judge Gilbart QC
18th December 2007
3

4


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2007/RA_45_2005.html