London Midland and Scottish Railway Company v Assessor for Glasgow
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1939 |
| Date | 10 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 35. |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Ld. Fleming. Ld. Robertson. Lord Keith.
Valuation—Appeal—Competency—Valuation Committee giving effect to complaint by third party by entering unlet railway subjects in local Roll—Appeal against decision—Whether an appeal on question of value.
Valuation—Subjects—Railway—Agreement by railway company to erect buildings on their property by Whitsunday to be leased to a firm of traders—Buildings in arrear and agreement by firm to accept occupation when completed—Buildings not finished and possession not taken until after Valuation Roll for year made up—Whether subjects could be entered and valued in local Roll—Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V, cap. 24), sec. 22 (9).
Valuation—Procedure—Complaint—Complaint by Assessor's nominee for purpose of correcting Roll—"Person interested"—Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1879 (42 and 43 Vict. cap. 42), sec. 6.
By an agreement between a railway company and a business firm the company agreed to erect on a vacant portion of their ground premises suitable for the firm, and the firm agreed to take a lease of the premises for twenty years from Whitsunday 1938. It being apparent in March of that year that the premises could not be ready at Whitsunday, the firm agreed that their occupation should be postponed until the completion of the premises, and that was not accomplished, and occupation was not taken, until 9th September. Some three weeks earlier, on 15th August, the local Assessor had made up his Roll for the year Whitsunday 1938 to Whitsunday 1939, and had entered the subjects as a building site owned and occupied by the railway company at the yearly rent or value of £50. In an appeal to the Valuation Committee by the railway company the appellants craved that the entry should be deleted, on the ground that, when the Roll was made up, the premises were unlet and unoccupied, and so could not enter the local Roll. The Assessor craved that the firm should be entered as occupiers, and moved that the hearing of the appeal should be postponed to allow of a complaint being lodged, under sec. 6 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1879, for the purpose of effecting this correction in the Roll. A complaint having thereafter been lodged by a ratepayer, who was in fact one of the Assessor's assistants, as a "person interested," the appeal and complaint were heard together by the Valuation Committee, who decided that the firm should be entered in the Roll as the tenants and occupiers at the annual value of £50.
The railway company having appealed to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, objection was taken to the competency of the appeal.
On the competency, the Court held that the appeal was competent, in respect that it involved a question of value, viz., whether to the value of other subjects belonging to the railway company and entered in the local Roll there should or should not be added the sum of £50.
On the merits, the Court held that the appeal fell to be sustained and the entry deleted from the Roll; Lord Fleming and Lord Robertson holding that, at the time when the local Assessor made up his Roll, the subjects, not being so let out as to be capable of separate assessment, must be held to have been included in the Roll of the Assessor of Public Undertakings, and accordingly could not be entered in the Roll of the local Assessor or dealt with by him; Lord Keith holding that the subjects notionally in the Roll of the Assessor of Public Undertakings at Whitsunday 1938, viz., a building site with unfinished buildings, were not the same subjects as those to which the present appeal related, viz., rent-producing premises actually let, subjects appropriate for entry in the local Roll. He agreed, however, that the appeal must be sustained on the technical ground that the subjects in question had come into existence after the Assessor had made up his Roll, and that there was no statutory warrant for a complaint relating to subjects which were not included in the Roll.
On the complaint, observed, per Lord Robertson (1) that it was an abuse of procedure by way of complaint for an Assessor to use it in order to obtain a correction of the Roll which he had himself prepared and for which he was responsible; and (2) that he was disposed to think that the complainer did not qualify himself as a "person interested" merely by stating that he was a ratepayer. Opinion contra per Lord Keith.
At a meeting of the Valuation Committee of the City of Glasgow held on 28th September 1938 the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company appealed against an entry in the local Roll for the year ending Whitsunday 1939, under which they were entered as proprietors and occupiers of "Oswald Street—Building Site" at the yearly rent or value of £50. They craved that the entry should be deleted, on the ground that, when the Roll was made up, viz., 15th August 1938, the premises were unlet and unoccupied, and thus were not capable of separate assessment so as to enable them to be entered in the local Roll. The Assessor explained that the premises were now occupied by Messrs Bishop Brothers, wholesale and retail tobacconists, and he moved that the Committee should enter the subjects as occupied by Bishop Brothers at a rent of £50, a course which would enable him to deal with the case on the Supplementary Roll by entering Bishop Brothers for their proper proportion of the rent of £2000 which had become payable by them. The agent for the Railway Company opposed the motion, on the ground that it would be an innovation in procedure to enter Bishop Brothers now, they not having been entered when the Roll was made up at 15th August. The Assessor moved for a continuation so that a complaint1 could be lodged to regularise procedure, and the appeal was continued until 12th October.[Case 749.]
Thereafter, on the instructions of the Assessor, a complaint was lodged by one of his assistants, a ratepayer in Glasgow, craving that the entry in the Roll should be amended by the entry of Bishop Brothers as the tenants of the subjects. When the appeal and complaint were called at the adjourned diet on 12th October, the appellants' agent moved the Committee to dispose of the appeal before dealing with the complaint, but the Committee decided that they would hear the appeal and inquire into the complaint at the same time. Having done so, their decision was "that the entry should be as follows:—“London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, Proprietors and Owners; Bishop Brothers as tenants and occupiers,” and the annual value at £50." Thereafter the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company craved and obtained a stated case on appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or proved or were within the knowledge of the Committee:—"(1) The site which is the subject of appeal is situated at the eastern corner of Oswald Street and Argyle Street, Glasgow. (2) From Lammas 1932 the site was let on a yearly tenancy, subject to three months' notice to quit, at a rent of £100, to a Mr Persichini for use as a car park. The appropriate entry for that let showing the Railway Company as proprietors and Mr Persichini as tenant was made in the local Valuation Roll, and the subjects were so entered in the said Roll for the year from Whitsunday 1937 to Whitsunday 1938. The appellants duly served upon Mr Persichini notice to quit at Martinmas 1937 and he did in fact quit the site at 13th November 1937. (3) When giving notice to Mr Persichini, the appellants had in view the development of the site for building purposes, and, by minute of agreement dated 17th September and 25th October 1937 between them and the said Bishop Brothers, it was agreed that the appellants should
erect on the said site premises suitable for the purposes of the business proposed to be carried on by the said Bishop Brothers; that the latter should provide all shop fittings required for, and otherwise adapt the premises to suit, their business, all free of expense to the appellants, and should bind and oblige themselves to lease the premises from the appellants for a period of twenty years as from and after the term of Whitsunday 1938, at a rent of £2000 per annum, and they bound themselves to enter into a formal lease, containing the appellants' usual terms and conditions of let. (4) The appellants did everything possible to have these premises ready for occupancy by Bishop Brothers at Whitsunday 1938. In consequence, however, of delays in the Dean of Guild Court and difficulty in obtaining building materials, it was anticipated that it would be impossible to give Bishop Brothers occupancy of the subjects at Whitsunday 1938. A supplementary agreement was accordingly entered into between the said parties, dated 9th and 21st March 1938, narrating the causes for the delay and that it might not be possible to have the said building completed in time to give Bishop Brothers possession of the premises as at the said term of Whitsunday 1938, and agreeing that, notwithstanding the terms of the previous minute of agreement, Bishop Brothers would accept occupation of the premises as soon as they were completed and possession was available, and providing that Bishop Brothers should have no claim against the Railway Company on account of the premises not being ready for occupancy by them at Whitsunday 1938. The supplementary agreement did not modify or alter the obligation on Bishop Brothers to lease the premises from the appellants for a period of twenty years from the term of Whitsunday 1938. The said minute of agreement and supplementary agreement were produced and are set forth in the appendix hereto. (5) As at Whitsunday 1938, and as at 15th August 1938, the premises suitable for the purposes of the business proposed to be carried on by the said Bishop Brothers were in course of construction...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glasgow Corporation (Housing Department) v Assessor for Glasgow
...Glasgow v. Glasgow Corporation, 1929 S. C. 291, Lord Hunter at p. 294; London Midland and Scottish Railway Co. v. Assessor for GlasgowSC, 1939 S. C. 312;Morison and Smith v. Assessor for LanarkshireSC, 1941 S. C. 6 25 and 26 Geo. V, cap. 41. 7 15 and 16 Geo. V, cap. 15. 8 25 and 26 Geo. V, ......