Marks And Spencer Plc V. The Assessor For Highland And Western Isles Valuation Joint Board
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Doherty,Lord President,Lady Dorrian |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] CSIH 96 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 19 November 2013 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Docket Number | XA108/13 |
| Date | 25 October 2013 |
| LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT | |
| [2013] CSIH 96 | |
| Lord President Lady Dorrian Lord Doherty | XA108/13 OPINION OF THE LORD PRESIDENT in the appeal by MARKS AND SPENCER PLC Appellant: against THE ASSESSOR FOR HIGHLAND AND WESTERN ISLES VALUATION JOINT BOARD Respondent: _______________ |
Alt: Cleland; Drummond Miller LLP
25 October 2013
Introduction
[1] This case is stated by the Highland and Western Isles Valuation Appeal Committee. It relates to a decision of the Committee dated 9 April 2013 by which it dismissed an appeal by the appellant against the entry in the roll at the 2010 Revaluation for its retail premises at Eastgate, Inverness, at a rateable value of £875,000.
[2] The question is whether the Committee was right to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant's written statement in support of it did not comply with the relevant Regulations.
The Regulations
[3] The Valuation Appeal Committee (Procedure in Appeals under the Valuation Acts) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 (the 1995 Regulations), so far as material to this case, provide as follows:
"Requirements as to appeal
3-(1) An appeal to the Committee shall be made be made by way of notice, which shall specify the particular lands and heritages in respect of which the appeal is made ...
Information to be furnished by parties to an appeal
10-(1) An appellant shall, not later than 35 days before the date set for the hearing, furnish to the assessor a written statement specifying -
(a) the grounds for his appeal, and
(b) if the appeal relates to the valuation entered in the valuation
roll, the valuation which the appellant considers should be entered in the roll and the grounds on which that valuation is arrived at ...
(3) If an appellant fails timeously to -
(a) furnish the statement required under paragraph (1) ...
the assessor may apply to the Committee to have the appeal dismissed and the Committee may grant that application if it thinks fit ...
(5) Either party to an appeal may, not later than 21 days before the date set for the hearing, furnish to the other party to the appeal a list of any lands and heritages, and hereditaments in England and Wales, on which he proposes to found by way of comparison at the hearing, and may at the same time as he furnishes that list make a written request to the other party to provide him with a list of lands and heritages and hereditaments on which that other party proposes to found by way of comparison at the hearing; and any party so requested shall furnish such a list not later than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing ...
Relaxation of time limits
19 Without prejudice to regulations 10(4) and 15(2), the Committee may extend the time appointed by these Regulations for the doing of any act, other than the time within which an application may be made for referral to the Tribunal in terms of paragraph (1) or (4) of regulation 4, provided that it is satisfied that no substantial prejudice would thereby be caused to either party to the appeal, and it may do so notwithstanding that the time so appointed has expired before an application for an extension is made."
The appellant's written statement
[4] On 5 March 2013 the appellant's agents, GL Hearn, sent a letter to the assessor by post and by fax which, so far as material, was in the following terms:
"2010 Rating Revaluation
Valuation Appeal Committee Hearing - 9 April 2013
Marks and Spencer
Shop - 9 Eastgate Inverness
We refer to the above named subjects and in accordance with the procedural timetable, we now write to confirm our grounds of appeal and alternative valuation.
We believe that the assessment is incorrect and wrong in law. We believe that the RV is incorrect and excessive, and we dispute the appropriateness of the proposed valuation rate.
We take this opportunity to confirm that it is our intention to proceed before the Valuation Appeal Committee should an amicable settlement not be reached.
We believe that a suitable alternative Rateable Value of £585,000 should be substituted in the Valuation Roll at a rate of £86 psm ..."
This letter was posted on the last possible day for compliance with Regulation 10(1). It was faxed to the assessor at 5.25pm.
[5] On 22 March 2013, GL Hearn wrote to the assessor proposing a revised valuation of £605,000.
The hearing before the Committee
[6] On 9 April 2013, at the outset of the hearing, counsel for the assessor moved that the appeal should be dismissed. Counsel for the appellant intimated that if the appeal were to proceed, the appellant would now propose a valuation of £750,000.
[7] Counsel for the assessor submitted that GL Hearn's letter of 5 March 2013 failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 10(1) because (a) it failed to specify the grounds of appeal; and (b) in intimating a proposed valuation of £585,000, it failed to specify the grounds on which that valuation was arrived at.
[8] Counsel for the appellant submitted (a) that the letter of 5 March sufficiently complied with Regulation 10(1); and (b) that if it did not, the Committee should have regard to the negotiations that preceded it and, in light of that, exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant under regulation 10(3).
The decision of the Committee
[9] The Committee found that the letter of 5 March 2013 did not comply with regulation 10. In its statement of reasons, the Committee says that it was common ground that the valuation proposed in the letter was no longer the figure for which the appellant's agents would contend before the Committee; and that the Committee could find nothing in the letter that specified how the valuation was arrived at. Since it was of the view that the third of the requirements of regulation 10(1) was plainly lacking, the Committee found it unnecessary to consider whether the appellant's grounds of appeal were specific or generic.
[10] The Committee then considered whether to exercise its discretion under regulation 10(3). It concluded that when considering the terms of regulation 10(1) it could not look beyond the plain terms of the letter. Therefore the extraneous matters referred to by counsel for the appellant failed to get round the problem caused by the lack of specification in the letter itself. The Committee concluded that the assessor had not been given fair notice as to how the valuation to be contended for had been arrived at. In its view, that was a particularly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Assessor For Lothian Valuation Joint Board V. Over The Counter Limited
...on the basis that it did not raise a question of valuation. That objection was plainly groundless (Marks and Spencer plc v Highland Ass, 2014 SLT 241) and was rightly abandoned during the hearing. The assessor's revised valuation [14] The question for the Committee was whether there had bee......
-
Historic Scotland Executive Agency Against The Assessor For The Highland Valuation Joint Board
...value, it considered that it could look to such decisions on issues of methodology (Marks and Spencer v Ass for Highland & Islands VJB ([2013] CSIH 96, at para 18). [21] It appeared to the Committee that the discounting of gross receipts was the appropriate way in which to deal with the val......