Magistrates of Glasgow, Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 03 October 1884 |
| Date | 03 October 1884 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Kinnear, Bill-Chamber Clerk.
Valuation of Lands Act, 1854 (17 and 18 Vict. c. 91)—Valuation of subjects which yield no profit—Deductions—Apportionment of value.—
Held (1) that water-works erected by a corporation under a statute which gave powers of assessment to the extent of the annual outlay only, were to be valued, and that the value to be taken was the amount of the rate levied under the statutory power, with deduction of all necessary outlays for management, maintenance, and repairs, but without deduction either of the sum of perpetual annuities paid by the corporation to the shareholders of companies whose undertakings they had by this statute acquired, or of a sum apportioned to a sinking fund for discharge of debt; and (2) that the total value must be allocated among the different parishes in which the undertaking was situated, according to the proportion which the structural cost of the works, including the cost of the solum, in each parish bore to the structural cost of the whole undertaking.
By the Glasgow Corporation Water-Works Act, 1855 (18 and 19 Vict. c. cxviii.), the Magistrates and Council of the City of Glasgow, and their successors in office, for the time being, as representing and for and on behalf of the community of the said city, were appointed Commissioners for executing and carrying into effect the said Act, and especially for supplying water to the said city and suburbs and places adjacent.
Under the foresaid Act of 1855, the Commissioners acquired by purchase (1) From the Gorbals Gravitation Water Company the water undertaking which belonged to them, and the Commissioners were required to pay therefor to the several shareholders perpetual annuities amounting in whole to £10,800; (2) From the company of proprietors of the Glasgow Water-Works the undertaking which belonged to them, and the Commissioners were required to pay therefor to the holders of ordinary and preference shares in the undertaking of the said company perpetual annuities at such rates as might be fixed by agreement or arbitration. The perpetual annuities were accordingly fixed and determined by arbitration on 15th December 1856, and amounted in whole to £16,167, 6s. per annum.
The Loch Katrine Works were also constructed by the Commissioners in virtue of the powers conferred upon them by the said Act of 1855 and subsequent Acts amending the same.
The Commissioners had under their Act powers of assessment, but these were limited so as to ensure that no profit should be drawn from the undertakings.*
The Assessor of Railways, Canals, &c., fixed the value of the Commissioners” undertakings at £131,404 for the year ending Whitsunday 1885. This value was the amount of the rates and assessments levied by the Commissioners, under deduction of a proportion of the expense of maintenance and repairs. This amount he apportioned among the various parishes through which the undertaking of the Commissioners passed, or in which works belonging to the undertaking lay, following the rule laid down by the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.1
The Commissioners appealed to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills under the 24th section of the Valuation Act,2 maintaining, first, that their undertakings did not fall to be valued at all, and claiming, secondly, a deduction of (1) the sum of £16,167 of annuities; (2) the sum of £16,733, 15s. 4d. for working charges, and expense of repairs and maintenance properly chargeable against revenue, and not allowed by the assessor; and (3) the sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Bailey
...DPP contends that it was proper for the defendants to be brought to Blanchardstown District Court. In this regard reliance is placed on O. 12, r. 3 of the District Court Rules which provides: 'Notwithstanding the provisions of these Rules, any practice or procedure now in force in the Dubli......
-
Ms Basia Lejonvarn v Mr Peter Burgess & Mrs Lynn Burgess
...keep her costs within the approved budget. 8.2The Applicable Principles 89 The figure produced by an approved cost budget mechanism (CPR r.3. 12-r.3.18) is a different thing to the final assessment of costs following the trial. The former is prospective; the latter is retrospective. True it......
-
Beverly Penelope Pecka (Plaintiff) v Maureen Sarah Pecka and Anr (First Defendant/Appellant) Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc and Anr (First Third Party/Respondent)
...Recorder Howells 29 His judgment may be summarised as follows: 30 (1) After reference to Ord. 12,r.1 of the County Court Rules and to Ord. 16,r.3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and to the note in the Annual Practice of 16/3/2, he held that a Third Party Notice in the County Court is not......
-
Patterson v DPP and Others
...v Sheehy [1991] IR 434 considered - People (DPP) v McCormack [1984] IR 177 followed - District Court Rules 1997 (SI 93/1997), O 24, r 32; O 12, r 3 - Criminal Procedure Act 1967 (No 12), s 4(A) - Criminal Justice Act 1999 (No 10), s 9 - Relief refused (2008/890JR - O'Neill J - 25/11/2009) [......