Tribunals · London Borough of Tower Hamlets · 2010 rating list

Eph04-01 Level 5 Global Switch House, Nutmeg Lane, E14 2AX

Computer Centre and Premises Decided 6 May 2021 27660203 Johnson Waud

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£292,500
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£292,500

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant (Capgemini UK Plc) sought deletion of Phase 3 of Level 5 at Global Switch House from the 2010 Rating List, arguing it should be merged with the adjoining Phase 2 as they functioned as a single data processing unit connected by fibre optic cabling. The tribunal found that although the phases were physically separated by a communal corridor and under separate leases, the geographical test for merger was not satisfied; mere cable linkage without human intercommunication was insufficient. The functional test was also not met as each phase could be separately occupied and let, and the cabling installation cost was minor when amortized over the lease term. The appeal was dismissed.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Capgemini UK Plc, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Split or merge the assessment · decisive
Evidence
Expert report
Cases cited
Woolway (VO) v Mazars [2015] UKSC 53; Burn Stewart Distillers Plc v Assessor for Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board [2001] RA 110; Trunkfield (VO) v London Borough of Camden [2001] RA 1; Slough Heat and Power v Thompson (VO) [2009] RA 1; Ritchie Roberts (VO) v Backhouse Jones Limited [2020] UKUT 0038 (LC); Harding v Clements v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] RA 271; Butterley & Company v Tasker (VO) [1961] 1 W.L.R 300; English Clays Lovering Pochin & Co v Davis (VO) [1996] RA 475; Rootes Motors (Scotland) Limited v Assessor for Renfrewshire [1971] S.L.T. 67; Coventry & Solihull Waste Disposal Company Limited v Anthony Russell (VO) [1998] WL 1042649; Glasgow University v Assessor for Glasgow 1952 SC 504; Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh (1890) 17 R 839; Lothian Regional Council v Assessor for Lothian Region; London County Council v Wilkins (Valuation Officer) [1957] AC 362; Williams (VO) v Scottish & Newcastle Retail Ltd and Allied Domecq [2001] EWCA Civ 185; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC)
Hearing
26 April 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Tower Hamlets ·

Is your own rateable value in line?

A free check compares a property with the assessments around it and says plainly whether there is anything worth pursuing.

Check a property

The tribunal’s decision in full

Download the PDF · Find it on valuationtribunal.gov.uk

Decision © Crown copyright, published by the Valuation Tribunal Service under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.