Blog | Business Rates | Development and Land

Supreme Court ruling favours developers

The long-awaited and highly anticipated decision of the business rates case, Monk v Newbigin has now been received, dissected and put into practice and is already having far reaching implications for owners and developers of vacant property.


The Supreme Court has come down on the side of property owners and developers in a long running test case on liability to rates during refurbishment and redevelopment works. The Supreme Court overturned an earlier Court of Appeal decision and determined a Rateable Value of £1 during the works to the building concerned.

The appeal was full of twists and turns with the case going to the Valuation Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and eventually the Supreme Court with the rulings being overturned every time that the case was reheard.

Many developers and landlords looking to undertake similar work or who had already started schemes that were financially strangled by the earlier Court of Appeal ruling were watching closely. The sector believed that any other result would have had profound repercussions, with building owners losing the incentive to redevelop and make vital improvement works.

We were watching closely and having anticipated the potential impact upon our clients, we were pleased to be involved and share our expertise and experience by advising an ‘intervener’ in the case – acting on behalf of a number of major clients facing similar problems with the Valuation Office.

The Supreme Court – which made the ultimate and binding decision – found in favour of the ratepayer having reached the decision that if a property is incapable of beneficial occupation on account of building works, it is appropriate to apply a Rateable Value of £1, removing the rate liability.

Although the final decision was widely hailed as the return of a common-sense approach to schemes of works, ratepayers should not rest on their laurels. It is likely that there will be resistance by the Valuation Office in light of the decision and test cases that challenge current thinking are anticipated. Each case should be assessed on its individual merits, rather than attempting to replicate the SJ & J Monk v Newbigin judgement.

Our advice is simple: even if you are doing relatively minimal work to your building, consider your business rate liability and seek early advice – prior to the scheme starting where possible. The earlier advice is sought, the greater chance we have of helping you.

The ‘Monk’ Case

The appeal related to 1st floor offices in Avalon House in Sunderland. The premises had been partially stripped back to a shell with the majority of ceiling tiles, suspended ceiling grid, light fittings and half the raised floor removed. The premises were marketed from 2010 whilst works were being carried out. Two years later the premises were still unlet with refurbishment works unfinished.

Monk, the developer lodged an appeal seeking to reduce his rates liability arguing that the property could not be occupied due to the building works. The Valuation Office opposed granting any allowance. Following various appeals the case eventually reached the Supreme Court who published its decision in March 2017. The Supreme Court overturned the earlier Court of Appeal decision and determined a Rateable Value of £1.

This complex test case considered a number of fundamental legal issues relating to the rating of premises undergoing redevelopment and refurbishment works. The principles set out in the decision will determine how all future cases will need to be considered.

IMPACT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS – Q & A

Does the decision relate only to offices?
No: the principles will be relevant
to any property type

Can this be applied to schemes which have already completed?
Possibly: if no appeal was served then seek advice as there could be a way of retrospectively securing a rate saving

On current schemes is the timing of an appeal important?
Very: seek advice from a specialist

Does the Valuation Office accept the decision?
Partially: their rating manual suggests that although they accept the decision they will scrutinise each case very carefully to determine whether to accept that a reduction is appropriate probably suggesting a rating specialist will be best placed to handle any appeal

Contact

If you would like to get in touch with Aoife, please contact her:

aoife.scanlon@allsop.co.uk or +44 (0)20 7543 6802


Related Insights

Fewer Homes, More Renters: The Structural Case for Multi-Family Investment
Blog 25/08/26

Fewer Homes, More Renters: The Structural Case for Multi-Family Investment

Build to Rent

While short term delivery challenges have reshaped investment patterns, the fundamentals underpinning professionally managed ...

Unlocking Higher Returns: Regional Residential Real Estate Investment Beyond London and the South East
Blog 20/08/26

Unlocking Higher Returns: Regional Residential Real Estate Investment Beyond London and the South East

Residential Investment | Residential Property

For decades, London and the South East have dominated the narrative around UK property investment. International demand, stro...

Why Work with a Broker When Financing Auction Property?
Blog 19/08/26

Why Work with a Broker When Financing Auction Property?

Auction | Commercial Auction

The speed that makes auction so attractive is also what makes finance preparation non-negotiable. Once the hammer falls, a bu...

New National Planning Policy Framework - which changes create new development opportunities?
Blog 19/08/26

New National Planning Policy Framework - which changes create new development opportunities?

Planning | Development and Land

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published by the government on Monday, following the December 2025 draf...