Proving things 74: WHEN YOUR EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM FABULOUS AND COMES WITH A “HEALTH WARNING”: APPLICANT’S CASE PUT BACK IN THE BOX
There is an interesting discussion of the evidence in the Upper Tribunal decision in Fabulous Collections Ltd v Smith (Valuation Officer), Re: 3 Poplar Arcade  UKUT 452. A central part of an applicant’s case essentially disappeared on the morning of the hearing. This shows the importance of scrutinising the evidence carefully well before the hearing, particularly evidence relating to loss or damages.
The appellant was a shop owner in a shipping centre in Solihull shopping centre. It argued that it should have a reduction in its rates because a competing shopping complex had opened nearby. This, it was said, led to a reduction in the shop’s income.
THE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING: FAR FROM GLITTERING
A central part of the applicant’s case was that the opening of the competing shopping centre had led to a major reduction in turnover. However there was an interesting development at the hearing itself.