The Makro case throws a business rates loophole wide open, says Aidan Briggs
Practitioners seeking imaginative ways to minimise their clients’ business rates liability in a tough market should look no further than the decision of the Administrative Court in R (Makro Properties Ltd) v Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council [2012] EWHC 2250 (Admin). Wholesale giant Makro used just 0.2% of their premises for six weeks to reap a saving of £117,000. HHJ Jarman QC’s decision is one which flies in the face of the intentions of the 2008 rating law reforms. It makes some surprising factual findings and dramatically alters the test to be applied—the requirement for actual occupation is now a nominal, rather than a substantial, test—but on any analysis it is sound both in logical and jurisprudential terms.
Facts
The case concerned a retail warehouse in Coventry. Two companies, both part of the Makro group, owned the freehold and leasehold respectively, although the leasehold was surrendered in December 2009 and thereafter occupation by the latter company was under licence. Makro claimed the property was occupied from 23 November 2009
