Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Mr Nicol Campbell appealed to the Commissioners for the district of Bute against an assessment of £410 made upon him for inhabited-house-duty at the rate of 6d. per £, for 1879–80, as proprietor of the buildings of which the following account was given in the Case subsequently stated on appeal:—“A few years ago the appellant became by succession the owner of the Queen's Hotel, in the West Bay, Rothesay; and being animated with a desire to benefit the town, he proposed to erect an entirely new building adjacent, which should be occupied as the headquarters of the Royal Northern Yacht Club, and in part as an extension of the hotel.… On the street floor in the new addition the club occupy a reading-room, a committee-room, steward's service and store-rooms, and lavatory. From the entrance-hall leading to these rooms a stair leads to a billiard-room, also occupied by the club, in a wing behind the new addition (the wing being part of the new addition). From this stair, by a landing, and by an ordinary two-leaved door with the usual lock and fastenings, entrance to the dining-room, called in the printed memorandum the dining-hall, on the first floor, is obtained. This is the dining-room of the hotel, which the members of the club are entitled to use, and entrance to it from the hotel is had by an ordinary door opening from the lobby of the hotel. This room is entirely in the new addition, and occupies nearly the whole space of the first floor of such addition. There are bedrooms connected with the hotel in the floor immediately above the dining-hall. The club-house is open during the whole year for the use of the members. The hotel consists of the whole of the old building, the second flat of the new building, containing dining-room, &c., and the third flat of the new building, containing bedrooms; and the Yacht Club part consists of the ground-floor in the new building, occupied as before mentioned, and billiard-room in wing. The door by which there is internal communication between the portion of the building let to the club and the hotel has bolts, and was not opened at all when members were absent, which was generally the whole winter. The hotel-keeper has nothing to do with the taking care of and cleaning the club premises, that duty being attended to throughout the whole year by a resident steward in the employment of the club.”

In the lease by the appellant to Mr W. M. Whyte, for thirteen years from Whitsunday 1876, of the hotel and the dining-hall and bedrooms before mentioned in the new building adjoining, at an annual rent till 1883 of £270, it was declared that the tenant of the hotel should, as far as incumbent on him, implement article 6 of the articles of agreement of lease of the club-house after mentioned; and that the dining-hall should be used in connection with the hotel alone, “and that while the members of the Yacht Club may have access thereto from their own premises, they shall not be entitled to use it otherwise than as the dining-hall of the hotel;” and by the articles of agreement of lease by the appellant to the Yacht Club, for fifteen years from 1st April 1877, of the rooms of the club, together with the use of the dining-hall, to which, as stipulated by the agreement, the club were to have a private access, at an annual rent for the first seven years of £140, it was provided (article 6) “that the tenant of the hotel or his servants, or

Page: 408↓

anyone living in the hotel, unless he be a member of the club, shall have no right to the use of any of the rooms set apart for the club.”

The occupancy was stated to have been in accordance with the leases referred to, and both subjects let had separate and distinct entrances to the street, with the internal communication before explained.

The appellant claimed exemption from assessment for house-duty in respect of 48 Geo. III. cap. 55, Schedule B, rule 14, which provided that “Where any dwelling-house shall be divided into different tenements, being distinct properties, every such tenement shall be subject to the same duties as if the same was an entire house, which duty shall be paid by the occupiers thereof respectively.”

He argued that the properties let were clearly distinct, and the tenants were the occupiers in the meaning of the Act.

The surveyor of taxes, on the other hand, relied on rule 6 of the schedule, which provided that “Where any house shall be let in different stories, tenements, lodgings, or landings, and shall be inhabited by two or more persons or families, the same shall nevertheless be subject to, and shall in like manner be charged to, the said duties as if such house or tenement was inhabited by one person or family only, and the landlord or owner shall be deemed the occupier of such dwelling-house, and shall be charged to the said duties.”

He contended that the appellant as landlord was liable, on the ground that the buildings being let to different persons, and a door of communication existing between the different portions so let, they were not “distinct properties” in the sense of rule 14.

The Commissioners unanimously confirmed the assessment, and afterwards stated this Case for Mr Campbell to the Court of Exchequer, which was heard before the First Division.

Authorities— Scottish Widows Fund v. Inland Revenue, Feb. 2, 1875, 2 R. 394; Attorney-General v. The Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association, Limited, May 16, 1876, 1 L.R. (Ex. Div.) 469; Inland Revenue v. The Scottish Widows Fund, Jan. 22, 1880, 17 Scot. Law Rep. 314.