Offices And Premises At 1St Floor, 8-10 Hatton Garden, EC1N 8AH
Offices and premises Decided 6 June 2026 CHG101412674 ForeView
Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2023 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 3 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (OFFICES AND PREMISES AT 1ST FLOOR, 8-10 HATTON GARDEN, LONDON EC1N 8AH). Every property is listed below.
The 3 properties in this decision
One judgement covered all of these appeals. Each property’s figures as the judgement states them (2023 list); this appeal’s property is highlighted.
| Property | Original RV | Sought | Tribunal decided | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1ST, 2ND, & 3RD FLOORS, 8-10 HATTON GARDEN, LONDON EC1N 8AH | £226,000 | — | — | Allowed |
| OFFICES AND PREMISES AT 1ST FLOOR, 8-10 HATTON GARDEN, LONDON EC1N 8AHThis appeal | £86,000 | — | — | Allowed |
| OFFICES AND PREMISES AT 3RD FLOOR, 8-10 HATTON GARDEN, LONDON EC1N 8AH | £60,000 | — | — | Allowed |
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellant sought deletion of the single assessment for three floors of an office building on the grounds that the property was incapable of beneficial occupation on the material day (5 June 2023), having been stripped of all lighting, floor coverings, small power, data/telecoms, partitioning and kitchenettes to enable future split and redevelopment. The Valuation Officer contended the works were repairs only and the property remained a hereditament. The Tribunal found that the photographic evidence, scope of works documents and invoices demonstrated the property had been stripped out for redevelopment to create three new hereditaments (not merely returned to its original state), and was therefore incapable of beneficial occupation and not a hereditament on the material day.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Ryden LLP, represented.
Grounds argued
- State of repair or deletion
- Evidence
- Photographs, Expert report
- Cases cited
- Newbigin v SJ & J Monk; Jackson v Canary Wharf; Carey Group Ltd v Ricketts; Colour Weddings Ltd v Roberts; Aviva Investors v Bunyan; BNPPDS(J) Limited and BCI Limited v Hitchings; Porter v Trustees of Gladman Sipps; FiL Investment Management Ltd v Giles
- Hearing
- 7 May 2026
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 — Allowed in part, 1 Jul 2026
- 2nd Floor, 120 Holborn, EC1N 2TD — Dismissed, 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.