Lands Valuation Appeals

AMY LEIGH-ANN ANDERSON v PROCURATOR FISCAL, DUNFERMLINE

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:54:22 GMT

Bill of Suspension; the complainer brought a bill of suspension at this Appeal hearing. At trial, the accused was charged with contravention of section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. She contended that she had not been given the option of having a urine test, although agreed that she was over the legal alcohol limit according to the breath test and had indeed been offered the option of a blood test. The sheriff preferred the evidence of the officers that she had been given the option of a urine test. Disputed in the bill of suspension; whether the sheriff had formed the view that the compainers agent had put her up to the defence and had reached the view, as a result of that presumption, that the compainer was lying. Refence was made to the sheriffs comment that 'you were going to plead guilty until you were put up to this defence by your solicitor';Whether justice had been seen to be done.

MULTI-LINK LEISURE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (Reclaimers) v NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL (respondents)

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:51:35 GMT

Interpretation and effect of a clause in a lease of land. Clause granting tenants an option to purchase. The lease was granted allowing the tenants to 'occupy and use the subjects for the development of a pay and play golf course....and no other purpose without the consent of the Landlords'. Clause 18.2 granted the tenants an option to purchase the land and provided determination of how the Option Price should be established. Following one attempt by the tenants to purchase the land, they later served a 'Notice to Exercise Option'. The landlords fixed the purchase price at £5.3m based on a valuation of the land at 'full market value'. The tenants contended that the effect of Clause 18.2 was that the sole use of the land to which the landlords were to have regard in fixing the full market value was development and use as a golf course. The tenants sought decrees of declarator and reduction, the effect of which would be to require the landlords to sell the subjects for £500,000. The Landlords counter-claimed for declarator that the option to purchase and the contract were validly rescinded and the option was spent and could no longer be exercised by the tenants.

The Assessor for Lothian v. Belhaven Brewery Company Limited [2008] CSIH 60

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:44:00 GMT

Land Valuation Appeal:- This was an appeal by the assessor against a decision of the Valuation Appeal Committee at Edinburgh dated 13 March 2008 relating to the respondent's public house, the World's End, at 2-8 High Street, Edinburgh. The subjects were entered in the Valuation Roll at the 2005 Revaluation at a net annual value and rateable value of £51,000. The respondent appealed against the entry and the V.A.C. allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting £47,000. Here the court considered whether the V.A.C. had misdirected itself, in particular, in relation to its treatment of it by comparison with other competitor businesses in the area and in its application of the valuation hypothesis.

The Assessor for Lothian v. BBW Leisure Limited [2008] CSIH 61

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:41:00 GMT

Land Valuation Appeal:- This was an appeal by the assessor against a decision of the Valuation Appeal Committee at Edinburgh dated 28 February 2008 relating to the respondent's licensed premises at 47 Buckstone Terrace, Edinburgh. The subjects were entered in the Valuation Roll at the 2005 Revaluation at a net annual value and rateable value of £84,700. The respondent appealed against the entry and the V.A.C. allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting £81,000. Here the court considered whether the V.A.C. had misdirected itself, in particular, in relation to its treatment of it by comparison with other competitor businesses in the area and in its application of the valuation hypothesis.

Belhaven Brewery Co Ltd v The Assessor for Highland & Western Isles [2008] CSIH 3

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:29:00 GMT

Appeal – Practice and Procedure/expenses. Net annual value (NAV) assessed by assessor. Basis of valuation disputed by appellants. Valuation had been based on turnover figures for 48 weeks period to 24 January 2004. The premises were acquired on 14 March 2003. The assessors revalued the property based on period 31 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 at NAV of £41,000. Considered, on these figures whether turnover figures sustainable. Appellant based own valuation on turnover figure for first year after revaluation in force. This brought NAV to £35,200. Failure to intimate Committee appeal to assessor. Undertaking by appellant, Mr Henry, that “he would never again take an appeal to this Court without taking legal advice at earliest opportunity”. This undertaking was not met. Unstateable appeal. Mr Henry personally liable to assessor in expenses of appeal.

Suburban Taverns (Glasgow) Ltd v The Assessor for Glasgow [2008] CSIH 5

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:28:00 GMT

Lands Valuation Appeal Court – Valuation Roll. Valuation of net annual value (NAV). This case was about a public house acquired by the appellant who appealed against an entry in Valuation Roll on the basis that it was too high. Tone date for entry was 1 April 2003. Public house acquired in July 2005 and local Valuation Appeal Committee refused appeal. Considered methods of valuation. The valuation assessed on “hypothetical achievable turnover” at tone date rather than date of acquisition. Opined that this figure was open to adjustment. Case Magell v Assessor for Dumfries & Galloway 2006 SC627 referred to. Disputed whether appellants should have disregarded previous turnover and based figure entirely on predicted “maintainable” turnover. Held that they should not. Appeal refused.

Belhaven Brewery Co Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow [2008] CSIH 2

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:28:00 GMT

Lands Valuation Appeal Court – Court of Session – Appeal of Valuation Appeal Committee decision. Assessor valued public house at net annual value (NAV) of £15,100. That figure appealed by appellant to Valuation Appeal Committee who refused. Their refusal appealed. Matters discussed were methodology of assessor and appellant in arriving at valuation figure. Landlord and Tenant had entered into transaction at date near initial assessment. Disputed whether turnover figures from later period could be considered. Held they could not. Appellant’s valuation misguided. Appeal refused.