Assessor for Stirlingshire v Myles and Binnie
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1962 |
| Date | 18 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 55. |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court,
Lord Patrick, Lord Sorn. Lord Hunter.
Valuation—Value—Subjects having physical characteristics of shops occupied and used for other purposes—Whether subjects to be valued according to actual physical state and actual beneficial use or according to actual physical state and most profitable hypothetical use—Valuation and Bating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (4 and 5 Eliz. II, cap. 60), sec. 6.
Two sets of premises, each having the physical characteristics of a shop, had been used by the occupiers for many years as an office and store and as an office respectively. The Assessor valued each of them, not on the basis of their actual beneficial use, but by comparing them with premises used as retail shops.
Held that, if a normal beneficial use was made of property, it must be valued on that basis and not on the basis that some more profitable use might be made of it without altering its structure.
Observed, per Lord Patrick, that, if the use to which property was put was such as to make it valueless, or if the proprietor placed arbitrary restrictions on the use which might be made of it, the property would be valued on the hypothetical basis that beneficial use was being made of it.
Authorities reviewed.
Myles's Case
At a meeting of the Valuation Appeal Committee for the County of Stirling, Alexander F. Myles appealed against an entry in the Valuation Roll for the year ending Whitsunday 1962, in respect of premises described as "Shop, &c." 198 Main Street, Camelon, Falkirk, of which premises he was shown to be the proprietor and A. F. Myles, Limited, to be tenants and occupiers. The Assessor proposed a gross annual value of £118 on the premises, valuing them by comparison with premises used as retail shops. The appellant maintained that as the premises were not used as a retail shop, but partly as an office and partly as a store, it was incorrect to value them as if they were used as a retail shop: and that, on the basis of their actual use, the gross annual value should be reduced to £108. The Committee having sustained the appeal, the Assessor expressed dissatisfaction and asked for a case to be stated on appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The case contained the following statement of facts:—"(1) The appellant owns and A. F. Myles, Limited (of which the appellant is managing director) operate a butcher's shop at 190 Main Street, Camelon. The adjoining premises to the west, No. 198 Main Street, Camelon, which are the subjects under appeal, have the appearance of an identical shop. The occupiers have their name on a board extending along the frontage of both No. 190 and No. 198 above the doors and windows. The subjects under appeal were formerly occupied as a chemist's shop and still have the physical characteristics of a shop. (2) The occupiers have used the subjects for at least eighteen years ten per centum as an office and ninety per centum as a store for the crockery, napery, &c., required for the business of outside catering also carried on by them. There is no window display and the shop window has a sheet of obscure glass behind the plate glass which can be easily removed to clean the plate glass. The glass window is three feet by eight feet eleven inches. No retail counter business is carried on in the premises. (3) The gross annual value proposed by the Assessor for the subjects of £118 is a correct value for such premises on the evidence submitted by him of comparable subjects used as retail shops provided that the Assessor is correct in valuing the subjects as a shop. (4) The gross annual value for the subjects if valued on the basis of actual use as an office and store is £75."
The contentions of the parties were stated as follows:—
"The appellant contended that—The use of the subjects as an office and store is decisive in ascertaining the basis of valuation and the gross annual value should therefore be £108.
"The Assessor contended that—(1) The subjects have the physical characteristics of shop premises and might therefore be reasonably expected to let for use as a shop. (2) The gross annual value of the subjects has been arrived at in accordance with section 6 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, in that the rent at which the subjects might reasonably be expected to let from year to year is that of a shop. (3) The subjects have been valued in their actual state and accordingly the gross annual value should be £118."
The decision of the Committee was stated as follows:—"The Committee having considered the facts and submissions for the appellant and the Assessor were of opinion that the appeal should be upheld; that the description of the subjects in the Roll should be amended by the alteration of the word “shop” to read “store”; and that the gross annual value should be £75 and the rateable value should be £60. The reasons for the Committee's decision were as follows:—“The use to which the subjects are being put was considered by the Committee to be the decisive factor of which account must be taken in deciding the basis for valuation. The Assessor is not entitled to value the subjects on the basis of the highest potential value which the subjects are capable of carrying where they are being put to a bona fide commercial use.”"
Binnie's Case
The Assessor also asked for a stated case on appeal from the same Committee to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court in respect of premises in Grangemouth which had the physical characteristics of a shop, but were occupied and used as a solicitor's office. They also had been valued as if they were used as a retail shop, the gross annual value being £115. On appeal to the Committee by the proprietor, John J. S. Binnie, the Committee sustained the appeal, and were of opinion that in view of the actual use made of the premises, they should be entered in the Roll at the gross annual value proposed by the appellant, namely £70.
The two cases were heard together before the Lands Valuation Appeal Court on 29th June 1962.
At advising on 18th July 1962,—
LORD PATRICK.—These two cases were heard together, since they raise the same point of law. In the first case the subjects in question were formerly occupied as a chemist's shop, but for at least eighteen years they have been occupied by the ratepayers as an office...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...Ltd v Brennan (VO) [1996] RA 341 Shah v Kubbinga (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) [198......
-
Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd and Another
...this omission has not altered the law ( Assessor for Lanarkshire v Smith [1962] SC 517; Assessor for Stirlingshire v Myles and Binnie [1962] SC 530). Section 15 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 contains provisions similar (but not identical) to those now found in paragraph 2(3) t......
-
Appeal By The Old Course Limited Against Fife Council Assessor
...to be valued having regard to their actual state and their existing use. Authorities such as Assessor for Stirlingshire v Myles and Binnie 1962 SC 530 had no bearing upon the issue. Empty houses were not occupied and used but they were nonetheless dwelling houses, and were dwellings: refere......
-
Happy Feet Nursery And Out Of School Club Limited Against Assessor For Lanarkshire
...use. He submitted that this case was governed by the following dictum of Lord Patrick in Ass for Stirlingshire v Myles and Binnie (1962 SC 530). “Two views of the matter have been entertained by our judges. The one is that you must value heritage in its actual physical state at the time of ......