Moss' Empires Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow

Earl Loreburn.In this case the facts are extremely short and simple. A property in Glasgow was valued at 950 a year, and in the Valuation-roll of the succeeding year it was raised to 1300, but no notice was given by the Assessor to the persons affected, the result of which was they had not a reminder that they could appeal. They did not appeal, and they lost the benefit of the statutory right. Those facts are to be assumed, and the question is whether the parties are to be admitted to proof.

Now, upon that the aggrieved parties come to the Court and ask for two thingsin the first place, that the entry should be reduced, and in the second place, that the pre-existing figure should be substituted for the figure of 1300. Those are two quite separate questions, and I deal with the first.

It is said that there is a statutory finality in this Valuation-roll. Whatever finality there be is not created by the general principles of law, but is dependent upon the Act of Parliament; we must therefore look to the sections of the Act of Parliament in order to see what the nature of this Valuation-roll is, and I shall refer to them a little at length because the question arises as to the meaning of some words that are there used.

The Act says that the magistrates shall annually cause to be made up a Valuation-roll; that they may take the assistance of the officers of Inland Revenue; that in order to the making up of such valuation they shall appoint Assessors; that the duty of the Assessors is to ascertain and assess and to make up such Valuation-roll; that a new Valuation-roll is to be made up by the Assessors every year; that the magistrates shall hold a Court for hearing appeals against it, and their deliverances upon such appeals shall be final and conclusive; that all persons who are entered by the Assessor in the Valuation-roll shall be entitled to appeal; that the Valuation-roll when made up by the Assessor is to be retained by him for a certain time; that as soon as the appeals have been heard and the valuation thereby completed, the Valuation-roll shall then be in force; that after the completion of each Valuation-roll the magistrates shall cause an account to be made out of the costs; and then there is a provision in regard to mistakes to which I shall have again to refer.

Now, as I understand it, under this Act the making up of the Valuation-roll is the duty of the Assessor; it is the duty of the magistrates to cause a Valuation-roll to be made up. The duty of the Assessor relates to value and entry; the Valuation-roll is completed when the appeals have been disposed of; it then is to be authenticated, and then the Valuation-roll is in force.

Valuation consists in the ascertaining of the rent or value, which is a matter to be determined by evidence, by opinion, by comparison of values, and it is a question of fact. One would expect that a Court of law would not be permitted to inquire into such matters. One would expect also that technical difficulties would not be allowed to interfere with the validity of the Valuation-roll. That is the character of the finality described, in my opinion, by this statute. One would expect that informalities or errors should be declared to be innocuous and to be disregarded, and also that a Court of law should not be permitted to take the duty of valuation upon itself. As a matter of general principle I certainly consider that unless a Court of law is precluded by statute it may reduce any order or assessment which imposes a liability to pay, unless it is made pursuant to the Act of Parliament conferring the right to make it upon those who do make it. But here there is, as one would expect, a provision for finalitythat is to say, the provision contained in section 30 of this Act of 1854.

The part of section 30 of this Act which is material says that no Valuation-roll which shall be made up and authenticated in terms of this Act, and no valuation which shall be contained therein, shall be challengeable, or be capable of being set aside or rendered ineffectual, by reason of any informality, or of any want of compliance with the provisions of this Act, in the proceedings for making up such valuation or Valuation-roll.

Now here there has been a non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, because notice has not been given. Was that a non-compliance in the proceeding for making up such valuation or Valuation-roll? I do not think that it was. The making up of the Valuation-roll was the duty of the Assessor, and the non-compliance with the Act was not connected with the duty of the Assessor in making up that Valuation-roll, and therefore, in my opinion, this non-compliance is not protected by the 30th section. It seems to me that if, for example, no Assessor were appointed, or no Court of Appeal were appointed, or no notice were given to the persons entitled to notice, the power of the Court to interpose and to reduce the entry has not been taken away. But the failure to comply with the Act in making up the Rollthat is to say, in the Assessor discharging his duty in that respectcould not be considered by the Court.

That seems to me to support entirely the decision of the Inner House in reducing this entry. I do not deal with the ulterior question whether the assessment of the previous year ought to be restored, because that question may never arise; it may appear upon the trial that notice was given, and we ought not to adjudicate upon a hypothesis which may never be realised. The argument of the Dean of...