Ropes & Gray International Llp, 4th Floor, EC4M 7AW
Offices and premises Decided 20 July 2026 CHG100695951 Graham + Sibbald - Joe McCarthy/Aitchison Raffety Ltd/Aitchison Raffety - Simon Cosstick
Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 2 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellants challenged the rateable values of offices at 60 Ludgate Hill, contending the price per m2 should be reduced from £550 to £535 per m2, supported by rental evidence from within the building and comparable assessments of nearby modern offices. The tribunal found the adopted price of £550 per m2 was supported by the rental evidence available, noting that of the key rents analysed, two fell below (£504 and £519 per m2) and two above (£629 and £600 per m2) the adopted price, and therefore concluded the present entries were not unreasonable.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Commonwealth Bank of Australia, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone)
- Rental evidence
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
- Hearing
- 26 June 2026
Similar decisions
- 5 TH FLR 1, BARTHOLOMEW LANE, EC2N 2AX — Dismissed, 10 Sept 2026
- Petronas Energy Trading Ltd, Petronas Energy Trading Ltd, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
- Equistone Partners Europe Limited, PT 6TH FLR 60 Ludgate Hill, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
- Ropes & Gray International Llp, 5th Floor South, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
All decisions in City of London Corporation · 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.