Paul Reynolds has successfully represented the Valuation Officer in an important business rates case before the Upper Tribunal. The link to the decision can be found here.
The appeal was brought by the Head of Chambers of Pump Court Tax Chambers. He argued that the barristers who occupied individual lockable rooms in Chambers were the sole occupants of those ‘barrister rooms’, rather than them being occupied collectively like the common parts (e.g. reception areas) of chambers. Alternatively, he argued that if both Chambers and the individual barristers were in occupation of the barrister rooms, then it was the individual barristers who had general control of those rooms and so they were in ‘paramount occupation’. For this reason, he argued that the Chambers should be split up into separate units for rating purposes. The commercial motivation behind this was that many of the small units would be eligible for small business rates relief.
The Upper Tribunal disagreed, accepting Paul’s submissions for the Valuation Officer on both issues. By the Chambers’ Constitution Chambers’ property was held on trust for the benefit of all the members of Chambers jointly. No one member had any entitlement over the collective. They were jointly in occupation of the whole property, and for a shared purpose. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the Valuation Officer that ‘The purpose for which the Appeal Premises are occupied is a shared purpose of all Members namely to enable each of them to carry on their individual practices from the same premises and under their collective identity, and to benefit from the joint provision of support and administrative services and the sharing of expenses’. As such the purpose supported their joint occupation of it.
The appeal was decided on that basis. However, for good measure the Upper Tribunal stated that if it was wrong on that, and if it had to determine who was in paramount occupation, then it was Chambers and not the individual barrister who was in paramount occupation.
Chambers’ members jointly enjoyed ‘collective control’ over all of Chambers’ property, including the individual barrister rooms. The purpose of the occupation of the individual barrister rooms and Chambers as a whole was mutually supportive:
‘By allocating each Member a separate Room and leaving them there relatively undisturbed Chambers facilitates each individual’s practice and the successful operation of Chambers as a whole. …, Members benefit financially from sharing the Appeal Premises by reducing their individual expenses, and they benefit reputationally by their association with each other and their brand which helps to attract work…’
As part of the appeal Paul cross-examined five factual witnesses for Pump Court Tax Chambers, including the Head of Chambers, and three other KCs.
Paul was instructed by George Little of HMRC Solicitors.
Pump Court Tax Chambers was represented by Nicholas Trompeter KC of Selborne Chambers.
Paul acts for both ratepayers and the valuation officers in relation to all matters pertaining to valuation and rating. More broadly he advises in relation to indirect taxes, including VAT, and duties.
Read more about the case in the Law Society Gazette here.
