The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of an egg producer and National Farmers Union (NFU) member regarding the application of the agricultural exemption from business rates.
The Kent-based company, Fridays Ltd, have been engaged in a four-year legal dispute over whether its three storage and packing buildings should be exempt from business rates.
The difference between the buildings falling within the agriculture exemption and paying full rates would be worth more than £200,000 to Fridays Ltd.
The egg producer first challenged the 2017 non-domestic rating list in January 2021. However, in September 2022, the valuation officer at the Valuation Tribunal dismissed this challenge.
Fridays Ltd appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal, and ultimately, the decision of the Upper Tribunal in 2024 was appealed by the valuation officer to the Court of Appeal.
After four years of proceedings, a Court of Appeal judge confirmed that the three buildings are exempt from business rates.
It was stated in court that the “functional connection” between the buildings and the farms owned by Fridays Ltd means they do fall under the agricultural exemption bracket.
NFU
As a member of the NFU, Fridays Ltd was was supported by the NFU’s Legal Assistance Scheme (LAS) and its legal panel firm, Thrings.
NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “This is a significant outcome which not only delivers for Fridays Ltd, preventing it from being unfairly taxed hundreds of thousands of pounds, but clarifies the application of the exemption.”
NFU’s legal board chair, Nick Hamer added: “This case clearly demonstrates the value of the NFU and its LAS in supporting members in times of difficulty. I’d also like to thank our Legal Panel Firm, Thrings, for their representation.”
Director of Fridays Ltd, Andrew Friday said: “This outcome recognises the reality of modernised farming practices and provides long-overdue clarity for our business.
“We are grateful to the court for its careful consideration, and to the NFU and its LAS for its overall support and, more importantly, the significant funding, without which we wouldn’t have been able to progress this case.”
