1. This appeal concerns the assessment of the rateable value for 2004/2005 of certain fixed equipment used by the Respondent, an electricity company, at its generating stations in the New Territories and on Lantau Island. The Appellant is the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation (the “Commissioner”). 2. The items of equipment in issue in this appeal include (collectively, the “Disputed Items”): (a) The supporting steelwork for boilers at Section B of the Castle Peak Power Station (“CPPS ‘B’”); (b) The cooling water circuits at CPPS ‘B’ and the Black Point Power Station (“BPPS”); and (c) Ancillary pipework and electrical cables within the power stations. 3. The Commissioner contended that the supporting steelwork for boilers at BPPS also formed part of the Disputed Items but this was objected to by the Respondent. 4. At the Lands Tribunal, the Disputed Items (including the supporting steelwork for boilers at BPPS) were held to fall within the definition of “plant” under section 8A of the Rating Ordinance, Cap 116 (the “Ordinance”) and thus form part of the Respondent’s tenement for rating assessment. The Respondent contended that the Disputed Items were process machinery within the meaning of section 8(b) of the Ordinance and thus not rateable. The Court of Appeal set aside the Lands Tribunal’s ruling and held that section 8A of the Ordinance did not cover cases like the present one where there is already a rateable tenement and the issue of the rateability of the Disputed Items was remitted back to the Lands Tribunal for consideration of evidence. The Commissioner further appealed to this Court. 5. Four questions arose on this appeal: First, what is the correct construction of section 8A, in particular its statutory purpose and its reach? Secondly, what is the interaction of section 8A with section 8, and especially the relieving provision in section 8(b)? Thirdly, is there a unique rule in the law of rating that in deciding whether an item is plant, it is not permissible to have regard to its function as part of a larger whole (the “piecemeal principle”)? Fourthly, should the Court of Appeal have remitted the matter back to the Lands Tribunal? The construction of section 8A 6. The Court held that section 8A was to apply to any equipment which is plant by means of which any land, building or structure is occupied by a person “whether or not such land, building or structure is otherwise a tenement”. It achieves that result in two stages. Subsection (1) deems the land, building or structure (to the extent of its being occupied by the relevant plant) to be a separate tenement, and subsection (2) provides that the plant is to be regarded as part of that separate tenement for the purpose of ascertaining its rateable value. 7. The purpose of subsection (1), which treats land occupied by the relevant plant as a separate tenement, is partly to avoid difficulty with the long-standing principle of rating law that a tenement can have only one person at a time in rateable occupation of it, although as a matter of practical administration, the theoretical “separateness” of all the relevant tenements would be overridden by an in cumulo assessment (meaning valuing 2 or more tenements together as a single unit in certain circumstances) under section 10 of the Ordinance. 8. The application of section 8A is not limited to cases where there is not already a rateable tenement. Based on their natural meaning, the words in section 8A(1) “whether or not such land, building or structure is otherwise a tenement” make clear that the plant occupying the relevant land, building or structure may be either plant that would not otherwise be recognised as a tenement at all, or plant that would otherwise be treated as part of a larger tenement. The relationship of section 8 and section 8A 9. The Court held that section 8A altered the effect of section 8 in a technical way in that if plant occupying some land, building or structure within the meaning of section 8A also happens to be machinery which is an adjunct to a tenement within the meaning of section 8(a), then the words “shall be regarded as part of the tenement” in section 8(a) must be displaced as the plant cannot simultaneously be a separate tenement and part of another tenement. However, it is a technicality with little practical significance since in practice the Commissioner will make an in cumulo assessment under section 10. 10. In other respects, section 8 remains in full force despite the existence of section 8A. In particular, the relieving provision in section 8(b) continues to apply in respect of “any machinery in or on the tenement for the purpose of manufacturing operations or trade processes”. 11. It is possible that most adjunct machinery falling within section 8(a) will also be occupying plant falling within section 8A. This overlap could be avoided by treating the inclusive definition of “plant” in section 8A(3) as limited to ancillary equipment which is not adjunct machinery falling within section 8(a), and is one of the seven types of ancillary equipment specifically mentioned in the definition. The piecemeal principle 12. There is no such thing as the piecemeal principle. Nor are there any sort of unwritten common law principles which apply in the specialized field of rating. The decisions relied on by the Commissioner in deriving the so-called piecemeal principle, namely, Shell-Mex and BP Ltd v Holyoak [1959] 1 WLR 188 and Manchester Marine Ltd v Duckworth (Valuation Officer) [1973] 1 WLR 1431, were both results of applying general principles of statutory construction to specific English statute law on rating, which is very different from the rating law in Hong Kong. The issue of remission 13. The Court held that supporting steelwork for boilers fell squarely within the definition in section 8A(3) and cannot reasonably be described as a machine or part of a machine. Likewise, the ancillary pipework and electrical cables as well as the whole of water-cooling systems cannot be regarded as a machine, or part of a machine, falling within section 8(b). Therefore, there is no need to order a remitter to the Lands Tribunal in respect of the rateability of these items. 14. As for the supporting steelwork for the boilers at BPPS, the issue as to whether it forms part of the Disputed Items was not resolved either before the Lands Tribunal or at the Court of Appeal. Given that the Lands Tribunal did not make findings of fact on this issue and the reference year 2004/2005 is now so long ago, also given that the Court of Appeal did not set aside or direct remitter of the Lands Tribunal’s judgment so far as it affects the structural steelwork at BPPS, the Court held that it should leave in force the Lands Tribunal’s judgment on this issue, namely, the supporting steelwork for the boilers at BPPS is rateable. Conclusion 15. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and no remitter to the Lands Tribunal was directed.