Basement, 4-5 Duke Of York Street, SW1Y 6LA
Club and premises Decided 19 April 2022 CHG100144720 Rupert David Ltd
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, represented by a surveyor, argued that the main space rate of £1,000/m² was excessive and sought a reduction to £650/m² and an RV of £90,000, relying on a June 2015 rent of £100,000 per annum and comparable properties. The tribunal found that the appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify the claim for reduction, particularly as the June 2015 rent was unsubstantiated whereas the respondent's February 2013 rent of £120,000 was supported by the Form of Return, confirmation from the club manager, and Land Registry records. The tribunal determined that the analysed rent of £2,564.74/m² (after adjusting for capital premium and refurbishment costs) supported the £1,000/m² rate, and dismissed the appeal.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Secrets Group, represented.
Grounds argued
- Rental evidence · decisive
- Comparable assessments (tone)
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments, Photographs, Expert report
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell
- Hearing
- 23 March 2022
Similar decisions
- 18 Cosway Street, NW1 5NR — Dismissed, 19 Jun 2026
- Ground Floor, 77 Shaftesbury Avenue, W1D 5DU — Dismissed, 9 May 2025
- BST GND & MEZZ FLRS 83, GREAT TITCHFIELD STREET, W1W 6RH — Dismissed, 10 May 2024
- BST & GRD FLRS 10 BERKELEY SQUARE, W1J 6EF — Allowed in part, 19 Apr 2024
All decisions in City of Westminster · Pubs, hotels and leisure nationally
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 propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
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.