Assessor for Lanarkshire v Smith
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1962 |
| Date | 09 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 53. |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Lord Patrick. Lord Sorn. Lord Kilbrandon.
ValuationValueActual and potential use of subjectsDwelling-house not possessing space for garageWhether account to be taken of garage potential and lack of garage potential in valuing dwelling-housesLands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854 (17 and 18 Vict. cap. 91), sec. 6Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (4 and 5 Eliz. II, cap. 60), sec. 6 (2).
The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act, 1854, enacts:Sec. 6. "In estimating the yearly value of lands and heritages under this Act, the same shall be taken to be the rent at which such lands and heritages might in their actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year."
The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, enacts:Sec. 6. "(2) The gross annual value of any lands and heritages shall be the rent at which the lands and heritages might reasonably be expected to let from year to year."
There was insufficient space between the gable of a dwelling-house and its boundary fence to allow for the erection of a garage. The Assessor disregarded this fact in reaching a figure for the gross annual value of the house, and, in evidence before the Valuation Appeal Committee, he cited comparisons with similar houses, one of which did, and some of which did not, possess sufficient space to allow for the erection of garages.
The Committee reduced the Assessor's proposed valuation on the ground that a house without space for a garage within the house curtilage would not attract the same rent as one with such space.
Held that the principle that subjects should be valued in their actual state and without regard to their potential use still remained a principle of valuation law although no longer expressly enacted.
Opinion per Lord Patrick, that the only case where subjects are not to be valued in the state in which they are at the date of valuation is where they are temporarily in a state of disrepair.
At a meeting of the Valuation Appeal Committee for the County of Lanark, William Smith and Mrs Catherine Smith appealed against an entry in the Valuation Roll for the Burgh of Hamilton for the year ending Whitsunday 196162, in which they were shown as proprietors and occupiers of a house at 39 Russell Street, Burnbank, with a gross annual value of 49. They craved that the value should be reduced to 45. The Committee having reduced the value to 48, the Assessor expressed dissatisfaction and asked for a case to be stated on appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The case stated that the following facts were admitted or were held by the Committee to be proved or within their knowledge:"(1) The appellants are the owners and occupiers of the subjects of appeal. (2) The subjects of appeal are a one storey and attic semi-detached dwelling-house comprising two rooms, kitchenette and bathroom on the ground floor, and two rooms and boxroom on the attic floor. (3) They are stone built and slated and were erected about 1900. They are situated in a residential area and are in good condition for their age and type. (4) The area of the ground floor is 761 square feet and the attic floor 438 square feet. The attic is coom-ceiled and because of this only two-thirds of the floor area of the attic was taken into account. The overall reduced area is therefore 1053 square feet which at a gross annual value of 49 devalues at a rate of elevenpence farthingper square foot. (5) The width between the gable of the house and the feu boundary is four feet four inches, and, accordingly, there is no room for a motor car access and the appellant consequently cannot have a garage within the house curtilage. (6) The following comparisons were cited:(1) 66 Udston Road, Burnbank, Hamilton, a local authority two storey semi-detached dwelling-house of four rooms, kitchenette and bathroom with an area of approximately 1230 square feet. The first floor is not coom-ceiled. The gross annual value is 51. (2) 33 Russell Street, Burnbank, Hamilton. One storey and attic semi-detached dwelling-house of four rooms, kitchenette and bathroom with an overall reduced area of 1053 square feet. There is ample room for a car access and a garage could be built within the house curtilage. The gross annual value is 49. (3) 35 Russell Street, Burnbank, Hamilton. One storey and attic semi-detached dwelling-house of four rooms, kitchenette and bathroom with an overall reduced area of 1053 square feet. There is no room for a car access. The gross annual value is 49. (4) 37 Russell Street, Burnbank, Hamilton. One storey and attic semi-detached dwelling-house of four rooms, kitchenette and bathroom with an overall reduced area of 1053 square feet. There is no room for a car access. The gross annual value is 49. (5) 61 Reid Street, Burnbank, Hamilton. One storey and attic semi-detached dwelling-house of four rooms, kitchenette and bathroom with an overall reduced area of 1063 square feet. There is room for a car access. The gross annual value is 49. (7) When valuing dwelling houses it was the practice of the Assessor not to take into account the fact that any particular house had or had not room...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...(VO) (LT ref RA/59/98, 1 December 1998) Assessor for Stirlingshire v Myles and Binnie 1962 SC 530 Assessor for Lanarkshire v Smith 1962 SC 517 R v London School Board (1886) 17 QBD 738 LCC v Erith Parish [1893] AC 562 Byrne v Parker (VO) [1980] RA 45 Metropolitan Water Board v Chertsey Unio......
-
Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd and Another
...language of Midland Bank v Lanham. That would have been to legislate by a 'surreptitious device' (see Assessor for Lanarkshire v Smith [1962] SC 517, 521). 57 Mr Holgate (who showed courtesy, coolness and determination in the face of something of a barrage from the bench) insisted that he w......
- Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd and Another
-
ASSESSOR for CENTRAL REGION v UNITED GLASS Ltd
...repair (as perMacMurchie v. Assessor for Dundeesupra) that is an exception to the rule. But in Assessor for Lanarkshire v. SmithSC 1962 S.C. 517 Lord Patrick observed at pages 521–522 that as at present advised he was of opinion that the exception under 6 (2) (involving disregard of the rul......