Johnstone v Assessor for Dumfriesshire
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 28. |
| Date | 27 March 1968 |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Lord Hunter. Lord Fraser. Lord Avonside.
Valuation—Appeal—Valuation Appeal Committee—Powers of Committee—Whether entitled to increase valuation.
An assessor made four separate entries in a valuation roll in respect of a mansion house, lodge and two cottages, which were all in the occupation of one ratepayer. The Valuation Committee, in allowing an appeal, held that the subjects were a unum quid but fixed the gross annual value for the unum quid at the sum of the four separate gross annual values entered in the roll by the assessor. The resulting rateable value was higher than the sum of the four rateable values resulting from the assessor's valuation. In an appeal by the ratepayer to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, the assessor conceded that the subjects should have entered the roll as a unum quid,but supported the Committee's amended figures.
Held, applying dictum of Lord Fleming in Thorburn v. Assessor for Peeblesshire, 1941 S. C. 232, at pp. 236-7, as to the powers of Valuation Committees, that the Committee had exceeded their statutory powers in purporting to make an entry in the roll more unfavourable to the appellant than the entries against which he had appealed; and that, in the special circumstances, the gross annual value contended for by the appellant should enter the roll.
Lord Avonside, while concurring in the decision, was of opinionthat the case was an unsuitable one in which to make any pronouncement on principle, and that Lord Fleming's dictum, so far as it expressed any generality, was obiter.
At a meeting of the Valuation Appeal Committee for the county of Dumfries, Ian M. Johnstone appealed against four entries in the valuation roll for the year ending Whitsunday 1967, in which four subjects of which he was owner and occupier, described as "House and garage, Glenae Lodge," "House, Glenae, Amisfield," "House, Glenae, Amisfield," and "Mansion house and pertinents, Glenae, Amisfield," were entered at gross annual values of £40, £35, £35 and £225 respectively, with corresponding rateable values, in terms of section 6 (6) and the First Schedule of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956,1 of £30, £26, £26 and £184. The total rateable value of the four subjects was thus £266. The appellant craved that the four subjects should enter the roll as aunum quid at a total gross annual value of £275. The Committee sustained the appeal to the extent of holding that the subjects should enter the roll as a unum quid, but at a gross annual value of £335, the total of the gross annual values of the four subjects, with a corresponding rateable value of £276. At the request of the appellant the Committee stated a case for the opinion of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The case stated that the following facts, inter alia, were held to be proved or admitted or within the knowledge of the Committee:—"(1) Glenae lodge is situated at the entrance to the drive leading to Glenae mansion house and is about 300 yards from it. The
two cottages are situated in proximity to the mansion house, although lying on the opposite side of the entrance drive, which is also used as a service road leading to a farm. The mansion house, lodge and two cottages are all in the occupation of the appellant and used by him, the lodge and cottages being occupied by his employees. (2) All four subjects are capable of being let separately and they have no internal communication between them. (7) The subjects were not valued by the assessor as a unum quid but were separately valued by him in terms of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, on the comparative principle and on the same basis as that used by him for comparable subjects with appropriate allowances for differences in sizes, etc. (9) The appellant accepted that on a comparative basis the values proposed for each of the four separate subjects were fair when compared with the valuations made on revaluation of other comparable subjects."The contentions of the parties were, inter alia, as follows:—
"The appellant contended:—(1) That the question whether the subjects fell to be valued as a unum quid or separately is a question whether the particular subjects on balance fulfil the requirements of a unum quid. (3) That no evidence exists to support the assessor's proposed increased values made on his revaluation and that the values of the appeal subjects should remain at those made in 1961 [i.e.£26, £27, £27 and £195].
"The assessor contended:—(1) That in deciding whether subjects should be treated as a unum quid each test should not be considered in isolation but a decision reached on this question on the balance of evidence. (4) That in valuing a unum quid the value can only be reached by valuing each part of the subjects and then considering whether the total should be adjusted to reflect any advantage or disadvantage of being a single unit. No evidence was placed before the Committee as to unum quid value of the appeal subjects in particular or that there is a disadvantage in the appeal subjects being a single unit."
The decision of the Committee was stated as follows:—"After considering the evidence adduced and the contentions of both the appellant and the assessor the Committee decided that the four subjects concerned in the appeal should enter the roll as a unum quidand that the gross annual value thereof should be £335, being the total of the gross annual values of these four subjects as assessed by the assessor. In reaching this decision the Committee decided:—(a) that on the evidence placed before them theunum quid method of entry in the roll was correct, as this evidence showed that they satisfied both the geographical and functional tests, although they did not have internal communication and were capable of being let separately; (b) that the assessment of the gross annual value of each of the four subjects had been correctly made on a comparative basis and that the gross annual value of the unum quid should be their total; and (c) that the amended entry in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Assessor for Fife Region v Leven Golfing Society
...for StirlingUNK (1882) 10 R. 32; Arbuckle Smith & Co. v. Assessor for RenfrewshireSC 1958 S.C. 557; Johnstone v. Assessor for DumfriesSC 1968 S.C. 264). So it was improper to take as comparisons the list in Production 3, which comprised the element in unum quid valuations relating to the cl......