TWYGEN Ltd v ASSESSOR for TAYSIDE REGION
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1990 |
| Date | 05 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 11. |
| Court | Court of Session |
SC
Lords Clyde, Prosser, Milligan.
Valuation—Entry—Subjects—Agricultural buildings—Market garden—Buildings entered in valuation roll as greenhouses and laboratory—Buildings used for production of seed potatoes by micro—propagation—Whether agricultural buildings—Whether entitled to de-rating—Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (4 & 5 Eliz. II, cap. 60), sec. 7 (2) and (3).1
Section 7 (2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 defines agricultural lands and heritages as meaning inter alia:—"Any lands and heritages used for agricultural or pastoral purposes only or as woodlands, market gardens, orchards … but does not include any buildings thereon other than agricultural buildings." The expression "agricultural buildings" is then defined in that subsection as meaning buildings "occupied together with agricultural lands and heritages, or being or forming part of a market garden, and in either case used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon". Section 7 (3) of the Act enacts that no agricultural lands and heritages shall be entered into the valuation roll.
The appellants operated certain buildings at a technology park in Dundee which were used for the production of seed potatoes by micro-propagation. The assessor entered the buildings in the valuation roll as greenhouses and laboratory. The appellants sought to have the buildings excluded from the roll as being agricultural buildings within the meaning of the 1956 Act. The valuation appeal committee refused their appeal and they thereafter appealed to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. In rejecting their appeal the valuation appeal committee held (1) that the hi-tech micro-propagation work undertaken from the premises was unable to be reconciled with that of a market garden; (2) that the subjects were not being used solely for agricultural purposes because (a) the appellants stored their product in the premises for part of the year; and (b) the appellants undertook the development of their seed potato stock within the laboratory; and (3) that the seed potatoes produced by the appellants were not sold on for immediate consumption by the public but instead were sold to other outside agencies such as supermarkets and crisp manufacturers and the product itself did not fall within the class of goods supplied by market gardeners to the greengrocer's shop for consumption by the public. The appellants arguedinter alia that a market garden was a holding of land with or without buildings used by a horticulturalist for intensive cultivation for the production of a horticultural or agricultural produce for sale.
Held (aff. the valuation appeal committee), (1) that the question was whether the particular subjects, even if they were unique or were carrying on some novel enterprise, possessed those characteristics which, in the ordinary use of language, would be attributed to a market garden, and their use, their function and the nature of their product were among the relevant considerations in this regard, but one essential element in the idea of a market garden was the production of an article, be it fruit, vegetable or perhaps flowers, grown in that garden, which would itself be sold directly or indirectly to a member of the public for him to consume; and (2) that the things which were produced in the subjects of appeal were not sold for consumption by the public and were not intended for eating but to provide the means by which others might, by repeated propagation, obtain a crop of potatoes for consumption, so that the committee had been entitled to hold that an article of that kind was not the kind of thing that one would, in the ordinary use of language, say would come from a market garden; and appeal refused.
Observations, on the meaning of the phrase "ordinary use of language".
At a meeting of the valuation committee for Tayside Region, held for the purpose of hearing and determining appeals against entries in the valuation roll, Twygen Limited appealed against certain entries in the valuation roll referable to buildings in a technology park in Dundee used by them for the production of seed potatoes by micro-propagation. The assessor had entered the buildings in the roll as greenhouses and laboratory. The company ratepayers contended that the subjects comprised agricultural buildings and were entitled to de-rating in terms of sec. 7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. The valuation appeal committee refused the appeal and the company ratepayers thereafter appealed to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The appeal came before the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, comprising Lords Clyde, Prosser and Milligan.
At advising on 5th December 1990,—
LORD CLYDE.—The subjects in this appeal comprise certain buildings at a technology park in Dundee. The assessor has entered them in the roll as greenhouses and laboratory. They are used for the production of seed potatoes by micro-propagation. The appellants who operate the buildings have sought to have them excluded from the roll as agricultural buildings. The committee refused their appeal and they have appealed to this court against that decision.
Section 7 (3) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 provides that no agricultural lands and heritages shall be entered in the valuation roll. Section 7 (2) defines agricultural lands and heritages as meaning inter alia: "Any lands and heritages used for agricultural or pastoral purposes only or as woodlands, market gardens, orchards … but does not include any buildings thereon other than agricultural buildings…" The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tunnel Tech Ltd v Reeves (Valuation Officer)
...[1962] 1 WLR, 1165,Grewar v Moncur's Curator Bonis [1916] SC 764,Watters v Hunter [1927] SC 310,Twygen v Assessor for Tayside Region [1991] SC 98,Darlington & Sons v Langridge [1973] RA 207 and Johnson v H B Foods Ltd [2013] UKUT 0539 (LC). 25 Judge Mole said (at [36]) that Parliament must ......
-
Decision Nº RA 1 2013. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 07-04-2014
...[1962] 1 WLR, 1165 Grewar v Moncur's Curator Bonis [1916] SC 764 Watters v Hunter [1927] SC 310 Twygen v Assessor for Tayside Region [1991] SC 98 Darlington & Sons v Langridge (VO) [1973] RA 207 Johnson (VO) v H B Foods Ltd [2013] UKUT 0539 (LC) DECISION Introduction This is an appeal again......