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!
[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 ClerkLord HardieLord Malcolm
|
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 ClerkLord HardieLord Malcolm
|
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 ClerkLord HardieLord Malcolm
|
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.