David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd, v Assessor for Clydebank., David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd, v Assessor for Glasgow., London and North Eastern Railway Company v Assessor for Glasgow., General Billposting Company v Assessor for Glasgow
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 26. |
| Date | 04 February 1936 |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Lord Hunter. Lord Fleming. Lord Pitman.
ValuationSubjectsAdvertisement hoardingsWhether heritable.
ValuationSubjectsErections by lesseesAdvertisement hoardings erected under agreements with landownersWhether agreements leasesLands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895 (58 and 59 Vict. cap. 41), sec. 4.
ValuationSubjectsAdvertisement hoardings erected under agreements on railway propertyWhether to be entered in Roll of Assessor of Public Undertakings or in local RollRailways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V, cap. 24), sec. 22 (9).
Held (1) that hoardings for the display of advertisements, which were firmly attached to or embedded in land or buildings, were heritable subjects; (2) that grants of the use of sites for the erection of such hoardings for a specified period and for a periodical payment were leases and not merely licences to use, and that the fact that the grant of a site on railway property was made not by the railway company but by a firm which had acquired the sole right of advertising on railway property was immaterial; (3) that the hoardings so erected were tenants' erections which fell to be separately entered in the Roll under section 4 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895, with the owner of the hoarding as proprietor and occupier; and (4) that, in the case of hoardings erected on ground belonging to a railway company, they fell to be entered in the local Roll and not in the Roll of the Assessor of Public Undertakings, in respect that the ground was excluded from the undertaking of the railway company by sec. 22 (9) of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, as being "so let out as to be capable of separate assessment."
Observed by Lord Hunter that, if a railway company merely granted permission to use, for the purposes of advertising, a part of their subjects which remained in the "paramount occupation" of the railway company, as for example the walls of a station or of a bridge carrying the lines of the system, it might be difficult to regard the agreement as a lease.
Cart Street and Glasgow Road.
At a meeting of the Valuation Committee of the Burgh of Clydebank David Allen & Sons Billposting, Limited, appealed against an entry in the Roll for the year ending Whitsunday 1936, under which "Hoardings, Cart Street and Glasgow Road" were entered in the Roll at the annual value of 2. They craved that the entry should be deleted from the Roll.
The Valuation Committee having dismissed the appeal, the appellants craved and obtained a stated case on appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.1 [Cases 650-654, and 656]
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or proved or were within the knowledge of the Committee:"(1) The subject to which this appeal relates consists of an advertising hoarding. The hoarding is a substantial erection of pleasing design, being panelled along the edges of the advertising space. It is of an L shape, one leg of which is erected in Glasgow Road outside of a parapet wall of a bridge carrying that road over the main line of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and is mounted, facing Glasgow Road, the main thoroughfare in Clydebank, on a framing with vertical supports firmly affixed to the masonry of the bridge, and with struts projecting backwards and embedded in the embankment of the railway. The other leg of the hoarding is in Cart Street, and lies outside of the fence separating that street from the said main line. It is mounted, facing Cart Street, on a frame with vertical supports and struts extending backwards, all of which are embedded in the embankment of the cutting of said main line. (2) The said hoarding is the property of the appellants, Messrs David Allen & Sons Bill-posting, Limited, who make a payment to Messrs MacDuff & Company, 9 Southampton Street, Bloomsbury, London, of a sum at the rate of 3s. 6d. per square yard of the hoarding in respect of the let of the site on which the said hoarding is erected.
(4) The said agreement [between the appellants and MacDuff & Company] bears that the said MacDuff & Company, by virtue of a minute of agreement entered into between them and the Caledonian Railway Company, now merged in the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, acquired the sole rights of advertising on the property of the said railway companies, and provides, inter alia, (second)that the said MacDuff & Company thereby let certain sites for billposting, including the site of the subject of appeal, to the appellants, and that as from 1st April 1928 until 31st March 1935, and for a further period of five years in the event of no notice of termination having been given by either party prior to 30th September 1934. (5) That the said agreement is at present in force, the requisite notice of termination not having been given. (6) The said agreement further provides (third) that the rent payable by the appellants to the said MacDuff & Company shall be at the rate of three shillings and sixpence per square yard per annum for the full period of the tenancy upon the sites and others as detailed in the schedule annexed and subscribed as relative thereto with such additional sites as may from time to time be added thereto by mutual agreement (fourth) that the rent payable by the appellants to the said MacDuff & Company shall be payable quarterly in advance on First April, First July, First October and First January in each year; (fifth) that the appellants shall pay all tenant's rates, taxes (except landlord's property tax) and other assessments which may be charged or imposed in respect of all sites for billposting forming the subject of the agreement, and that the appellants shall relieve the said MacDuff & Company of such rates, taxes (except as aforesaid) and assessments as they may be required to pay; (sixth) that all hoardings shall be erected by the appellants at their sole expense and to the satisfaction of, inter alios, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company; (seventh) that no hoarding shall be altered in design or altered in size by the appellants without the previous consent in writing of the said MacDuff & Company; (tenth) that the appellants shall themselves occupy the sites thereby let and not assign, underset or sublet the same without the consent in writing of the said MacDuff & Company; (thirteenth) that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company shall be entitled to resume possession of the site on the subject of appeal on 7 days' previous notice being given by the said MacDuff & Company to the appellants in the event of the said London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company desiring to resume possession of it; (seventeenth) that the appellants shall free and relieve,inter alios, the said MacDuff & Company and the said London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company of all liability to third parties and shall indemnify them against any loss or damage sustained by any of them in connexion with or arising out of the agreement; and (eighteenth) that the appellants shall remove from the subjects let at the termination of the agreement without any warning or process of removing to that effect; all materials upon the said sites remaining, in so far as the said MacDuff & Company is concerned, the property of the appellants. (7) The payments to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company by the said MacDuff & Company under the said agreement entered into between the said MacDuff & Company and the Caledonian Railway Company now merged in the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company were returned by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company to the Assessor of Public Undertakings (Scotland), and dealt with by him in ascertaining the valuation of the railway company's undertaking."The case further stated:"The Committee, having considered the facts of this case and having heard counsel for the appellants and the Assessor, were of opinion that the hoarding is heritable; that it is erected on a site belonging to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company; that it is owned by the appellants, Messrs David Allen & Sons Billposting, Limited; that the appellants, Messrs David Allen & Sons Billposting, Limited, are the lessees of the site on which the hoarding is erected; that the hoarding is a tenants erection' within the meaning of section 4 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895, and is not included in the valuation of the railway undertaking; that the appellants, Messrs David Allen & Sons Billposting, Limited, fall to be entered in the Valuation Roll as proprietors and tenants of said hoarding."
Dock Street and Glasgow Road.
The same appellants appealed against a similar decision of the same Committee regarding an entry in the Roll of "Hoarding, Dock Street, Glasgow Road," and "Hoarding, south side Glasgow Road." The facts in this case are summarised by Lord Fleming in his opinion, the only material point of difference from the facts in the Cart Street case being that the agreement for the grant of the site was made directly between the railway company and the appellants.
Whitecrook Street, &.
The same appellants appealed against a similar decision of the same Committee regarding entries of hoardings at Whitecrook Street, Mill Road, Alexander Street, Whitecrook Street (railway bridge), Kilbowie Road, and Bannerman Street. In this case the agreement was made directly between the railway company and the appellants. In other respects the facts were similar to those in the Cart Street case.
Centre Street and 160 Stirling Road.
The same appellants appealed against a similar decision of the Valuation Committee of Glasgow regarding entries "Hoarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Company
...bookstalls were. Both Lord Hunter and more emphatically Lord Pitman in David Allen and Sons Billposting Ltd. v. Assessor for Clydebank, 1936, S.L.T. 163 at pp. 168 and 172, express the view that the formula defining "railway hereditament" in section 1 (3), and embodied in section 22 (9) pr......
-
St Andrews Forest Lodges Limited Against Jeremy Grieve And Iona Grieve
...as a licence. Approval was also given to Lord Pitman’s pithy statement in David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd v Assessor for Clydebank 1936 SC 318 at 335, that “a licence to use a heritage is just a lease of heritage”. There was however no suggestion that Lord Templeman was wrong to hold tha......
-
London Midland and Scottish Railway Company v Assessor for Glasgow
...S. C. 652. 8 1916 S. C. 686. 9 Rankine on Leases, (3rd ed.) p. 1; David Allen & Sons Billposting, Limited, v. Assessor for ClydebankSC, 1936 S. C. 318, Lord Pitman at p. 335. 10 Assessor for Glasgow v. Bank of Scotland, 1925 S. C. 548, per Lord Hunter at p. 553; Bouik's Trustee v. Assessor ......
-
British Transport Commission v Assessor for Glasgow
...Trustees and Dougall v. Assessor for GlasgowSC, 1946 S. C. 252. 7 David Allen & Sons Billposting, Limited v. Assessor for ClydebankSC, 1936 S. C. 318; London and North Eastern Railway Co. v. Assessor for FifeSC, 1935 S. C. 352; John Menzies & Co. v. Assessor for GlasgowSC (Case 2), 1937 S. ......