A tribunal has determined that barristers’ rooms in a legal chambers do not qualify as individual properties for business rates, rejecting a significant appeal led by a prominent tax law chambers.
The Pump Court Tax Chambers sought to overturn a decision by the Valuation Tribunal that classified rooms occupied by barristers as a single ‘hereditament’ rather than distinct properties. This classification affects their eligibility for small business rate relief, which would have been possible had the rooms been deemed separate entities. With this decision, each barrister would have potentially benefited from individual relief given that a single hereditament with a value up to £12,000 qualifies for a 100% reduction in rates.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), represented by Deputy President Martin Rodger KC and surveyor Mark Higgin, noted the unique nature of the argument, given the long-standing tradition of barristers working in shared chambers. The case specifically revolved around an annex in Jockey’s Fields, listed since 1 April 2017, with a rateable value of £152,000. The Pump Court argued for a recognition of each room as a separate hereditament, pointing out that barristers paid significant sums for their exclusive use of rooms.
Under the existing system, barristers pay between £6,000 and £19,200 annually to occupy these rooms, based on size, with additional shared expenses tied to their work earnings. Despite having exclusive use and decoration rights of their rooms, the tribunal held that these circumstances aligned more with collective occupation by the entire chambers, rather than individual members.
Significantly, the tribunal highlighted that all members shared a collective responsibility through their membership contracts, which included a ‘trust of land’ clause. This clause states that properties acquired for chambers are held collectively, thereby supporting their shared professional practice, administrative functions, and expense consolidation.
The tribunal further observed that alterations in room allocations, such as those triggered by parental leave or part-time work policies, exemplified the collective control over the premises rather than individual ownership. This assurance of shared occupancy and control negates the argument for individual rateable properties and emphasises the collective functioning of chambers.
The tribunal’s decision underscores the cohesive nature of chambers and the legal implications of shared property use amongst barristers, highlighting the challenges in defining property rights within such traditional professional settings.
Ultimately, the tribunal’s decision to uphold the single hereditament classification reflects the entrenched cooperative practice within legal chambers, where shared use of space underpins both professional identity and operational efficiency.
