Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1891 |
| Docket Number | No. 139.,No. 182. |
| Date | 13 June 1891 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Wellwood, Ld. Kyllachy.
Valuation-roll—Bank buildings with dwelling-houses occupied by bank officials—Cumulo or separate valuation.—
The premises of a bank, including the banking-office and the dwelling-houses of two bank officials, were entered in the Valuation-roll as a unum quid at one cumulo valuation. The bank appealed, and maintained that the offices and dwelling-houses ought to be separately valued in order to satisfy the purposes of a local Act, which, in authorising an assessment, made a distinction between the assessment of dwelling-houses and offices. The houses formed part of the main bank buildings—one of them had internal communication with the office and the other had not.
Held that the dwelling-house which had no internal communication with the business premises ought to be separately valued, and that the dwelling-house which had such communication ought to be valued along with the office as a unum quid.
(Videante, May 30, 1890, 17 R. 839.)
At an Appeal Court held by the Magistrates of the burgh of Edinburgh on 10th day of September 1890, for the purpose of hearing and disposing of appeals against valuations made by the Assessor for the year from Whitsunday 1891, the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland appealed against an entry in the Valuation-roll by which the dwelling-houses of two officials of the bank and the office of the bank, which were all in the same building, were entered at a lump sum of £2500. [Case 117.]
The appellants did not dispute the correctness of the valuation, but desired that the subjects should be divided according to the purpose for which each part of them was used, and that a separate entry in the Valuation-roll should be made for each part or division, stating the value thereof. The grounds upon which they sought the change in the entry were that it was necessary for the purposes of certain assessments, and in compliance with the provisions of the Act 17 and 18 Vict. c. 91, that the valuation of the dwelling-houses should be separately entered from the bank-office in the Valuation-roll.
A process of suspension had been raised in the Court of Session at the instance of the Bank of Scotland to determine the question whether the Edinburgh and District Water Trustees were entitled, under their Acts, to levy the full domestic water-rate upon the premises used by the bank for its business. Under the Edinburgh and District Water Trust Acts, the water-rates were assessed and leviable upon the various heritages according to the Valuation-rolls applicable thereto. As the current entries in the Valuation-roll did not contain a separate valuation of (1) the office or business premises occupied by the Bank of Scotland, and (2) the houses owned by the bank and occupied by their cashier and bank-messenger, the suspension was dismissed, leaving it open to the bank to apply for a rectification of the Valuation-roll by entering the business premises and the houses under separate valuations.
The whole subjects of the bank consisted of one block of building separate and detached from any other building. The building was used as follows:—(1) Partly for carrying on the banking business; (2) partly as a dwelling-house for Mr Bell, the cashier, who lived in the upper flats; and (3) partly as a dwelling-house for Mr Lindsay, one of the bank-messengers, who lived in a part of the basement floor. Mr Bell's house was entered by a gate on the east end of the building leading to an outside passage or terrace, and thence by a door into a staircase, which formed the only access to Mr Bell's house for his family and servants. This staircase formed part of the main building, and the connection with the rest of the building was through a door on the first-floor landing, which formed an entrance to the business part of the building, and which was used by Mr Bell in going between his house and the bank, and also by the messenger. The large outside door of the building was closed and opened from the inside, and could not be opened or closed from the outside. The messenger or porter who closed the bank for the night left the bank by the door leading into the stair, which also formed the access to Mr Bell's house, and having handed the keys to Mr Bell, who was custodier thereof, did not enter the bank again, but left by the staircase at the east end of the building. His own dwelling-house on the basement was not connected with the rest of the premises by any internal communication, but was entered by a separate gate at the east end of the building leading down an outside stair to a separate outside door. Mr Bell and Mr Lindsay occupied their houses as officials of the bank, and their occupancy depended upon their remaining so.
The Assessor referred to Bank of Scotland v. Assessor for Edinburgh, decided May 30, 1890, 17 R. 889, and stated that the question in regard to the messenger's house had been raised in thatcase; but that the Judges having differed in opinion, the Magistrates' decision was allowed to stand.
The Magistrates adhered to their former decision, and dismissed the appeal.
The appellants craved a case, from which, and from the report in 17 R. 839, to which the parties referred, the above narrative is taken.
The arguments submitted by the parties were the same as those reported on p. 842 of 17 R., and fully appear otherwise from the opinions of the Judges.
At advising,—
Lord Wellwood.—I remain of the opinion which I expressed last year, namely, that when there is no internal communication between premises occupied as a dwelling-house and adjoining business premises the annual value of the former should be entered separately in the Valuation-roll if this is desired by the proprietor, although both sets of premises form part of the same tenement. For my reasons I refer to the opinion which I delivered last year reported in 17 R. 844. I therefore think that the value of the messenger's house, between which and the bank's business premises there is no internal communication, should be entered separately in the roll.
The cashier's house is in a different position. But for the door of communication between the bank's business premises and the stair leading to the house, I should have held that the value of the house should also be entered separately. But in the present condition of the premises the cashier can enter the bank without going into the street. The internal private stair leading to the cashier's house, which is really part of the house, is used not merely as an access to the house, but also as an access to the bank for the purpose of shutting and opening it, and the cashier himself is the custodier of the keys after bank hours.
It is true that a very slight structural alteration would cut off the bank's business premises altogether from the dwelling-house, and that other arrangements might be made for opening and shutting the bank which would not entail the use of the stair leading to the cashier's house. But I think the safer view is to deal with the premises as they at present stand. I think there is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woolway v Mazars
...to aggregate geographically distinct subjects. It is with this latter question that the present appeal is concerned. 7 In Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh (1890) 17 R 839, the Lands Valuation Appeal Court dealt with a number of rating appeals involving banks with office premises us......
-
Cardtronics Europe Ltd v Chris Sykes and Others (Valuation Officers)
... ... and Sainsbury's Bank Plc (4) The Co-operative Group Ltd. Appellants and ... is not simply a question of contiguity, as the second Bank of Scotland case [ Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh (1891) 18 R 936 ] ... ...