Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Appellant) v Mr. Karl List (Valuation Officer) (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0028

Parties

Appellant(s)

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Respondent(s)

Mr Karl List (Valuation Officer)

Issue

(1) Does section 64(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the “LGFA”) create a specific, separate regime for advertising rights for the purposes of determining who is liable for business rates on those hereditaments or do established rating concepts also apply? (2) Regarding the rating of railway advertisement rights, do the concerned advertising rights at certain train stations form part of the appellant’s single, ‘bloc’ hereditament comprising the national railway meaning it should feature on the Central List or should those advertising rights be treated as separate, distinct hereditaments and feature on the relevant local lists instead?

Facts

This appeal concerns advertisement rights at specific train stations in London (the “Rights”), being Liverpool Street Station and Victoria Station, and their ratable value for non-domestic rates. Rates are a tax on the occupation or ownership of hereditaments shown in either a local rating list or a central rating list. On 18 December 2010, the appellant, Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, entered into a contract with J.C. Decaux governing the Rights (alongside regulating advertising at other railway sites). Following requests from the relevant local authorities, the respondent, the Valuation Officer, entered the Rights into the local rating lists for the City of London and the City of Westminster, respectively. The appellant appealed their entry into the local rating lists arguing that they instead formed part of their ‘bloc’ hereditament and should only be on the Central List. The Valuation Tribunal for England (the “VTE”) agreed with the appellant and ordered that they be deleted from the local rating lists. The respondent appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and the VTE’s decision was overturned. The Upper Tribunal held that section 64(2) LGFA created a separate regime for advertising rights, distinct from the approach of rateable occupation more generally. The advertising rights were “let out” for the purposes of this statutory provision and, accordingly, such Rights should be included in the local rating lists in accordance with the wider statutory regime. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the Upper Tribunal’s decision. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Date of issue

11 March 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top