London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company v Assessor for Stirlingshire
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 28. |
| Date | 04 March 1942 |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
Ld. Fleming. Lord Wark. Ld. Robertson.
ValuationSubjectsRailwayPremises belonging to railway company requisitioned by CrownPremises not included in Roll of Assessor of Public UndertakingsNo appeal against exclusionPremises subsequently entered in local RollObjection by railway company to entryWhether premises rightly enteredLands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854 (17 and 18 Vict. cap. 91), sec. 3Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V. cap. 24), sec. 22 (9).
Sheds and houses belonging to a railway company and situated in docks of which they were the owners and occupiers had been requisitioned by the Crown and were in the occupation of Government Departments. The Assessor of Public Undertakings in valuing the docks for the year 1941-42 excluded these subjects from his Roll, and his determination was not appealed against by the railway company or by any local authority having interest. Thereafter the subjects were entered in the local Roll by the local Assessor for the year 1941-42, and an appeal by the railway company on the ground that the subjects, being part of the railway undertaking, should not have been entered in the local Roll and should now be deleted from the local Roll was dismissed by the Valuation Committee.
Held that, as the exclusion of the subjects from the Roll of the Assessor of Public Undertakings had not been challenged, the decision of the Assessor of Public Undertakings fell to be treated as finally determining that, for the current year, the subjects did not, under sec. 22 (9) of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, form part of the railway undertaking, and, accordingly, that the local Assessor had rightly included them in his Roll.
John Menzies & Co. v. Assessor for Glasgow(Case 1), 1937 S. C. 263, followed.
Dicta by Lord Hunter in London and North Eastern Railway Co. v. Assessor for Fife, 1935 S. C. 352, at p.359, and by Lord Pitman in London and North Eastern Railway Co. v. Assessor for Glasgow, 1935 S. C. 341, at p.351, commented on.
At a meeting of the Valuation Committee of Stirlingshire there was submitted an appeal at the instance of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company against the following entries in the Valuation Roll of the county of Stirling for the year ending Whitsunday 1942:(1) "Sheds Nos. 5, 8 and 10, Docks, Grangemouth," of which the appellants appeared as proprietors and the Admiralty as tenants or occupiers, their gross annual value being entered at 1458, 13s. 6d. and their rateable value at 1459; and (2) Two houses, "Carron View, Station Road, Grangemouth," of both of which the appellants appeared as proprietors and the Secretary of State for War as tenant or occupier, the gross annual value of each house being entered at 9, 2s. The company contended that the subjects, being part of their railway undertaking, should not have been entered in the local Valuation Roll. The Committee having dismissed the appeal, the company craved and obtained a stated case on appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.1 [Case 773.]
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or were held by the Committee to be proved or were within the knowledge of the Committee:"(1) The Grangemouth Dock Undertaking is owned and occupied by the appellant company, and is entered in the valuation roll by the Assessor of Public Undertakings for the current year at a net annual value of 28,299 and a rateable value of 7,075. (2) Situated on the docks are many buildings and parcels of ground let to tenants and separately entered in the local valuation roll. (3) The present appeal relates to the following buildings situated on the docks:(a) Sheds known as Shed No. 5, Shed No. 8 and Shed No. 10, all of which were requisitioned by H.M. Admiralty at the commencement of the present war, and are exclusively occupied by the Admiralty for the purpose of storage. Prior to the present war, Sheds Nos. 5 and 10 and the ground floor of Shed No. 8 had been occupied by the appellants, and included in the valuation of the dock as made up by the Assessor of Public Undertakings. The upper floor of Shed No. 8 had been let to the English China Clay Co. at an annual rental of 250, and separately entered in the local valuation roll. The annual compensation payable by the Admiralty in terms of section 2 (1) (a) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is 1,458, 13s. 6d. (b) Two houses at Carronview which were requisitioned by the War Department at the commencement of the present war, and have been used by it as billets for members of H.M. Forces
stationed in the area. Before the outbreak of war they were let, in the one case to a pitwood worker and in the other to a labourer. The Committee were not informed as to the amount of compensation payable in respect of these two houses. (4) In the railway company's return to the local Assessor, dated 13th June 1941, the sheds were entered at an annual value of 1,458, 13s. 6d., no name of occupier or tenant being inserted in the return. The two houses were entered at 9, 2s. each, the Secretary of State for War being shown as occupier. The return for the sheds had been made without prejudice to the appellants' contentions as to the validity of the entries. The Assessor made entries in the roll in accordance with the particulars returned by the appellants, but he entered the Admiralty as occupiers of the sheds, leaving blank the column for Tenant. (5) In making up his valuation of Grangemouth Docks for the year ending Whitsunday 1942, the Assessor of Public Undertakings had excluded both the sheds and the houses. The appellants, after due consideration of this decision of the Assessor of Public Undertakings, had decided not to appeal against the said exclusion, under reservation that the company were not to be taken as agreeing that the action of the Assessor of Public Undertakings was sound in law, and that they were not to be prejudiced thereby in the future. The Assessor produced three certificates by the Assessor of Public Undertakings (Scotland) relating (1) to the exclusion of the sheds from the valuation of Grangemouth Docks, (2) the costs of the buildings and relative land, and (3) the decision of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company not to appeal against the Public Undertakings Assessor's decision."
The contentions of the parties were stated as follows:"The agent for the appellants contended that the sheds and houses were not so let out as to be capable of separate assessment in terms of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930; that they should therefore be treated as part of the dock undertakings; and that it was not competent for the Assessor to enter them into the local valuation roll. He referred to the case of Station Hotel (Stirling), Limited, v. Assessor for StirlingSC,2 where a hotel which had been requisitioned by the War Department was held not to be bona fide let for a yearly rent conditioned as a fair annual value thereof within the meaning of section 6 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854. He submitted that the relationship between the appellants and the Admiralty was not that of landlord and tenant so as to create a letting-out of the properties within the terms of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930. He further maintained that the fact that the properties had been omitted from the roll made up by the Assessor of Public Undertakings was not relevant to the question of this appeal, and he referred to the cases ofLondon and North Eastern Railway Company v. Assessor for StirlingshireSC3 and London and North Eastern Railway Company v. Assessor for GlasgowSC.4
"The Assessor maintained that, as no appeal had been taken against the exclusion of these properties from the roll of the Assessor of Public Undertakings, the determination of the Assessor of Public Undertakings was, under section 24 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, final and conclusive for the year in question, and that the appellants could not now raise objection to the competency of an entry in the local roll. He referred to the case of L.M.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
British Transport Commission v Assessor for Edinburgh
...24. 5 11 and 12 Geo. VI, cap. 26, Second Sched., Part III. 1 London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. v. Assessor for StirlingshireSC, 1942 S. C. 340. 2 Reference was also made to Guest, Law of Valuation, p. 114; Armour, Valuation for Rating, (2nd ed.) pp. 186-187. 3 10 and 11 Geo. VI, cap.......
-
London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company v Assessor for Edinburgh
...Co. v. Assessor of Public UndertakingsSC, 1938 S. C. 751; London Midland and Scottish Railway Co. v. Assessor for StirlingshireSC, 1942 S. C. 340. 9 Station Hotel (Stirling), Limited, v. Assessor for StirlingSC, 1941 S. C. 587. 10 Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V,......
-
British Transport Commission v Assessor for Glasgow
...Railway Co. v. Assessor for EdinburghSC, 1945 S. C. 239. 9 London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. v. Assessor for StirlingshireSC, 1942 S. C. 340. 10 11 and 12 Geo. VI, cap. 11 British Transport Commission v. Assessor for EdinburghSC, 1949 S. C. 213. 12 1949 S. C. 213. 13 London, Midland ......