The Assessor For Tayside Valuation Joint Board Against Old Faskally Farming Co Ltd And Others
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Doherty,Lord Malcolm,Lord Justice Clerk |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] CSIH 25 |
| Date | 24 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | XA88/18 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 24 April 2019 |
LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT
[2019] CSIH 25
XA88/18
Lord Justice Clerk
Lord Malcolm
Lord Doherty
OPINION OF LADY DORRIAN, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in the Appeal
by
THE ASSESSOR FOR TAYSIDE VALUATION JOINT BOARD
Appellant
against
OLD FASKALLY FARMING CO LTD and OTHERS
Respondent
Appellant: Stuart QC; Clyde & Co (Scotland) LLP
Respondent: Clarke QC; Davidson Chalmers LLP
24 April 2019
[1] I have seen the opinion prepared by Lord Doherty, and I am in complete agreement
with it. In an earlier appeal the committee had determined that the fact that certain plant
and machinery was deemed non rateable under Class 1 meant that they did not require to
consider that plant in relation to any other class. The court held that this was wrong and
that a sequential approach was required. Plant might be non-rateable under Class 1 but yet
be rateable under some other category. Specifically, for the purposes of the current appeal,
items may be non-rateable under Class 1 but nevertheless be rateable under Class 4.
2
[2] The items which may be included in Class 4 are set out in tables 3 and 4. They
include dams; fixed cranes and gantries; conduits and ducts; foundations; supports; turbines
and generators; chambers and vessels; pits, beds and bays; and filters and separators. In
each case the items are excepted if they are neither a building or structure nor in the nature
of a building or structure. Accordingly, an item may be non-rateable in Class 1 but rateable
in Class 4 on the basis that it is, or is in the nature of, a building or a structure.
[3] On their reconsideration of the case, the committee recognised that a sequential
approach was required. They stated that they required to address whether individual
components of the penstock, non-rateable under Class 1, might nevertheless be rateable
under Class 4 as being, or being in the nature of, a building or structure. On that basis, they
considered that the dams and intake chambers were rateable. This approach should have
been followed through by examining the individual components of the pipeline, including
the associated thrustblocks, reinforced floors, foundations and so on. However, the
committee did not do that. Rather they considered the matter of rateability of these items to
be determined solely by their assessment of what constituted a “pipeline”. They considered
that if they concluded that the “pipeline” included the associated civil engineering works,
and the like, that was determinative of non-rateability, since parties were agreed that the
“pipeline” was non-rateable. Such an approach failed to recognise the limit of the
concession made by the assessor. The concession was only that the pipe itself was non-
rateable; there remained a dispute as to all other components, which required that the
committee examine these individually. The reasoning of the committee seems to have been
(i) the parties agree that the “pipeline” is exempt; therefore (ii) if the committee consider that
the “pipeline” is as defined by the ratepayers, it is exempt, and no examination of individual
To continue reading
Request your trial