Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Lawson's Representatives and O'Donnell [1883] ScotLR 20_432 (24 February 1883)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1883/20SLR0432.html
Cite as: [1883] ScotLR 20_432, [1883] SLR 20_432

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 432↓

Court of Session.

Saturday, February 24. 1883.

20 SLR 432

Lawson's Representatives and O'Donnell.

Subject_1Valuation Acts
Subject_2Lease
Subject_3Sub-Tenants.
Facts:

Where subjects were let under a lease, and were in part sublet, held that the assessable value was the rent stipulated in the lease without regard to the rents paid by the subtenants.

Headnote:

This was an appeal by James Lawson's representatives and the Rev. Alexander O'Donnell, Falkirk, from a decision of the Magistrates and Council of the burgh of Edinburgh confirming the valuation placed by the assessor on certain subjects in Chambers Street there, of which they were proprietors. The premises were let to Francis Mohan at a rent of £80 on a lease for four and a-half years. Mohan had sublet various parts of the subject at rents amounting in all to £46, and himself occupied the remainder, which was valued by the assessor at £47. The total rental was thus £93, at which amount the assessor had entered the subjects in the valuation roll.

Argued for the appellants—The whole sum stipulated for in the lease was £80. Under the 6th section of the Valuation Act (quoted in the case immediately preceding), and on the authority of previous decisions by the Appeal Judges, the assessor must take the value stipulated for in a bona fide lease as the fair annual value.

Authorities — John Bruce (No. 58), February 8, 1868, 11 Macph. 978; Hay & Co. (No. 70), July 12, 1867, 11 Macph. 981.

Argued for the assessor—The rents paid by the sub-tenants was the value of the various subjects. He was entitled to enter each subject in the roll at its annual value irrespective of the rent paid under the lease.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord Lee—I am of opinion that in the absence of any ground for holding that the subjects were not bona fide let for the yearly rent of £80, or that that rent was not conditioned as the fair annual value thereof, the increase of rent obtained by subletting some portions is not a circumstance sufficient to warrant departure from the statutory rule of valuation applicable to subjects under lease. The assessor is bound also to enter the names of

Page: 433↓

the occupants, and the rents payable by them, for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act. But the statutes do not authorise him to enter the value of the property above the actual rent, or to enter any portion of the subjects belonging to the proprietor at a different value from its value to him. I therefore think the determination of the magistrates wrong.

The same difficulty as that stated by the assessor was brought up early in the practice under the statute (see Case 33, 1861), and has always been held to be insufficient as a reason for setting aside the statutory rule of valuation.

The case of Hay (No. 70) appears to me to have settled the principle applicable to such cases as the present.

Lord Fraser—The question raised under this case is one which has frequently come up before this Court, and has been invariably determined in the same way. The rule laid down by the statute is quite explicit that the bona fide rent at which the subject is leased shall be taken as the annual value to be entered in the valuation roll, although the subject may have increased in value by additions made by the tenant since the lease was entered into, or although a larger amount may be collected from sub-tenants. The last occasion on which we required to consider and apply this rule was that of the Coltness Iron Company, March 1, 1882, 19 Scot. Law Rep. 566. I refer to the opinion that I expressed in that case as containing the grounds of judgment upon which I am prepared to decide the present case, and I need not repeat them.

I am of opinion that the determination of the magistrates must be altered, and the value entered at £80.

The Court was of opinion that the determination of the Magistrates and Council was wrong, and that the value should be entered at £80.

Counsel:

Counsel for Appellant— Wallace. Agent— Ebenezer Wallace.
1883

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010