Bst & Grd Flrs 15 Jockeys Fields, WC1R 4BW
Basement and Ground Floors, offices and premises Decided 26 April 2023 CHG100352561 Knight Frank - Nick Bell
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 (Pump Court Tax Chambers) sought to split the property into nine separate hereditaments, one for each barrister's office room. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that Pump Court Tax Chambers itself was in paramount rateable occupation of the entire property, and that individual barristers' occupation of their rooms was subordinate to that of the chambers as a whole. Although each room could theoretically satisfy the geographical test for separate hereditaments, the functional test and the nature of the occupation showed that the barristers were akin to lodgers within a common enterprise. The shared administrative services, the pooled contribution system, the allocation of rooms by the chambers, and the interdependence of individual barristers on chambers' clerking and administrative support all indicated that the occupation was subordinate to chambers' paramount occupation.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Pump Court Tax Chambers, represented.
Grounds argued
- Split or merge the assessment · decisive
- Evidence
- None from the ratepayer
- Cases cited
- Assessor for Central Scotland v Bank of Ireland; Bradford (VO) v Vtesse Networks; Bradley v Baylis; Brook (VO) v Gregg Plc; Cardtronics Europe Ltd v Sykes (VO); Clydesdale Bank Plc v Lanarkshire; Holywell Union Assessors v Halkyn; John Laing & Sons v Kingswood Assessment Committee; Ludgate House Ltd v Ricketts (VO); R (on the application of Makro Properties Ltd) v Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council; R v Melladew; R v Sterry; Re; the Appeal of Heilbuth (VO); Smith v Overseers of St Michael; Verrall v Hackney LBC; Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Company; Wimborne District Council v Brayne Construction Ltd; Woolway (VO) v Mazars LLP; Hughes (VO) v York Museums and Gallery Trust; Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and Others v Sykes (VO) and Others
- Hearing
- 3 April 2023
Similar decisions
- (INCL 2ND & 3RD FS STH 11) 10, NEW SQUARE, WC2A 3QD — Allowed, 18 Sept 2026
- 3RD FLR EAST 1, BEDFORD AVENUE, WC1B 3AU — Allowed in part, 18 Aug 2026
- 3rd Flr, 120 Holborn, EC1N 2TD — Mixed, 1 Jul 2026
- 65 King's Cross Road, WC1X 9LN — Agreed at hearing, 1 Jul 2026
All decisions in London Borough of Camden · Offices 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.