Whitbread Plc v Assessor for Lothian Region
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No 37 |
| Date | 07 May 1996 |
| Court | Lands Valuation Appeal Court (Scotland) |
LVAC
Lord Clyde, Lord Prosser and Lord Milligan
Practice—Valuation—Value based on turnover—Ratepayers failing to produce actual figures—Whether valuation appeal committee entitled to draw adverse inferences and proceed on best evidence available
Valuation—Value—Comparative value—Subjects valued by reference to turnover—Whether subjects should be valued by reference to comparison with other subjects on basis of floorage area
Valuation—Subjects—Public house—Restaurant—Inability to book a table in advance and necessity to buy food at counter—Whether subjects properly described as restaurant—Whether public house
Company ratepayers were the occupiers of premises in which food and liquor were sold. The assessor valued the subjects as a licensed restaurant on the basis of the application of certain percentages to the figures of turnover for the sales of food and of liquor. No one could book a table in advance and food had to be bought at the counter. The basis of the figures used were a record of turnover for the period of the first eight months of running of the premises with a projection to provide a figure for the whole year on the assumption that the level of turnover would continue substantially unchanged. The ratepayers failed to supply actual figures. The ratepayers appealed to the valuation appeal committee who refused the appeal. The ratepayers then appealed to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court and argued: (a) that the subjects should have been described as a publichouse and not a restaurant; (b) that the estimated figure of annual turnover was unreliable; and (c) that the committee had erred in adopting the assessor's classification of the subjects as superior in quality. The ratepayers also sought a remit to the committee to add details to the facts relating to comparable subjects and to make some alterations to the record of the ratepayers' contentions.
Held, (1) that the labels “public house” or “restaurant” might be of assistance in connection with exercises on the comparative method but could not be allowed to determine the essential question or striking the reasonable valuation for the particular subjects; (2) that some of the ratepayers' comparable subjects had themselves been valued on the basis of turnover and two of them had been held by the committee to be undervalued since the figures of turnover on which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Assessor For Scottish Borders Council V. Stobo Castle Health Spa Limited
...to us what the parties' cases were, we may be able to decide the appeal without the need for a remit (Whitbread v Ass for Lothian Region 1996 SC 374). By these means we can avoid delay. [9] In this case, I think that it is unnecessary for us to consider a remit to the Committee. Having read......