Supreme Court considers rating of ATM sites

This week, the UK Supreme Court has heard two days of argument as to whether the sites on which cash machines are placed are separate hereditaments for rating purposes. The case raised two main issues: whether such sites are capable of being hereditaments at all; and if so, whether they are occupied by the bank which operates the ATM itself, or by the store within which the machine is located. There were five parties to the appeal, represented by a total of eight barristers, all of whom are members of Landmark Chambers. The appeal was also notable as the last hearing of Lord Carnwath before his retirement; Lord Carnwath is himself a former member of Landmark. There are thousands of ATM appeals stayed behind the Court’s decision, and the legal arguments ranged across a number of the fundamental principles of rating. The outcome of the appeal is likely therefore to have wide-ranging implications for rating law and practice. Tim Morshead QC and Galina Ward appeared for the Valuation Officers; Richard Drabble QC and Christopher Lewsley represented Sainsbury’s; Tim Mould QC and Guy Williams acted for Tesco; Tim Mould QC and Christopher Lewsley represented the Co-op; and Dan Kolinsky QC and Luke Wilcox appeared for Cardtronics.