Tribunals · City of London Corporation · 2017 rating list

1ST AND (EXC NORTH) PT 2ND FLR, 60 LUDGATE HILL, EC4M 7AW

Offices and premises Decided 20 July 2026 CHG101078712 Montagu Evans - Chris Morrow

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£2,230,000£550/m²
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£2,230,000£550/m²

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, represented by surveyors from Montagu Evans, Knight Frank, Dalton Warner Davis, Graham + Sibbald and Colliers International, challenged the rateable value of offices at 60 Ludgate Hill on the grounds that the price per m2 of £550 was unreasonable and should be reduced to £535 per m2, based on rental evidence from within the building. The tribunal considered rental evidence from within the subject building ranging from £504 to £707.50 per m2 and found that two rents fell below the adopted price of £550 and two fell above it. The tribunal concluded that at £550 per m2, the adopted price was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeals.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Commonwealth Bank of Australia, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Rents
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
26 June 2026

Similar decisions

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 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.