BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Post Office Ltd v. Assessor For Renfrewshire Valuation Joint Board [2010] ScotCS CSIH_93 (10 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2010/2010CSIH93.html
Cite as: [2010] CSIH 93, [2011] RVR 105, [2010] ScotCS CSIH_93

[New search] [Help]


LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION

Lord Justice Clerk

Lord Hardie

Lord Malcolm


[2010] CSIH 93

OPINION OF THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK

in the STATED CASE

for the Opinion of the Court

in the case

POST OFFICE LIMITED

Appellant;

against

ASSESSOR FOR RENFREWSHIRE VALUATION JOINT BOARD

Respondent:

(Subjects: Site of Autoteller, Barrhead)

_______

For appellant: Connal QC, Solicitor Advocate; McGrigors

For respondent: Stuart, QC; Simpson & Marwick

10 December 2010


[1] The appeal subjects are the site of an automated telling machine (ATM) at a Sub Post Office at
77 Cross Arthurlie Street, Barrhead. The subjects are described in the Roll as "Site of Autoteller." The occupier of the site is identified as the Bank of Ireland. The assessor entered the subjects in the Roll at an NAV/RV of £4,500, but the parties are agreed that the correct figure should be £2,750. The appellant appealed against the entry on the ground that the subjects are not in separate rateable occupation. By a decision dated 10 December 2009 the Renfrewshire Valuation Appeal Committee refused the appeal. That is the decision appealed against.


[2] The contractual structure involving the Bank, the Post Office and the sub-postmaster in this case is identical to that which I have described in Ass for Central Scotland VJB v Bank of Ireland (2010 CSIH 91) which we heard with this case. The facts regarding the siting and usage of the ATM are substantially the same.


[3] For the reasons that I have given in my Opinion in that case, I consider that the subjects were rightly entered in the Roll


[4] I propose to your Lordships that we should refuse the appeal.


LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION

Lord Justice Clerk

Lord Hardie

Lord Malcolm


[2010] CSIH 93

OPINION OF LORD HARDIE

in the STATED CASE

for the Opinion of the Court

in the case

POST OFFICE LIMITED

Appellant;

against

ASSESSOR FOR RENFREWSHIRE VALUATION JOINT BOARD

Respondent:

(Subjects: Site of Autoteller, Barrhead)

_______

For appellant: Connal QC, Solicitor Advocate; McGrigors

For respondent: Stuart, QC; Simpson & Marwick

10 December 2010


[5] I agree with your Lordship in the chair that for the reasons given in this and in the related case of Ass for Central Scotland VJB v Bank of Ireland, the subjects were rightly entered in the Roll. Accordingly I agree with your Lordship that we should refuse the appeal.


LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION

Lord Justice Clerk

Lord Hardie

Lord Malcolm


[2010] CSIH 93

OPINION OF LORD MALCOLM

in the STATED CASE

for the Opinion of the Court

in the case

POST OFFICE LIMITED

Appellant;

against

ASSESSOR FOR RENFREWSHIRE VALUATIONS JOINT BOARD

Respondent:

(Subjects: Site of Autoteller, Barrhead)

_______

For appellant: Connal QC, Solicitor Advocate; McGrigors

For respondent: Stuart, QC; Simpson & Marwick

10 December 2010


[6] Under reference to our opinions in the related case of Ass for Central Scotland VJB v Bank of Ireland, I agree that the appeal should be refused.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2010/2010CSIH93.html