Scottish Court of Session Decisions

On the other hand, it is contended by the appellants that the sum to be inserted in the roll is the amount of the annual receipts realised from the hall in its actual state after deducting necessary outgoings, and an abstract of the accounts for 1882 is produced for the purpose of showing that the annual receipts have been less than the expenditure—in short, that the institution hitherto had not been self-supporting. It is argued that the restrictions imposed by the trust-deed, and by the character of the building, makes it impossible to value the premises as a lettable subject.

It must be observed that under the Valuation Acts the assessor has nothing to do with questions of rating or taxation. His duty is to make up a valuation roll of lands and heritages according to the statute. Such cases, therefore, as The Mayor of Worcester v. The Droitwich Poor Law Union, L.R., 2 Exch. Div. 49, are in my opinion of no application.

The question is, According to what rule ought the assessor to proceed in ascertaining the yearly value of such a subject? The statute undoubtedly requires that it shall be valued “in its actual state.” But it also requires that the annual value “shall be taken to be the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and heritages might in their actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year.” Is there is any impossibility in valuing it upon this principle as a lettable subject? I think that the appellants have failed to show any such impossibility. There is no restriction, either legal or physical, so far as appears from the case and the relative trust-deed, which should render it at all reasonable in my opinion to doubt that if the subjects were confiscated and exposed to be let as they stand, and under no other restrictions than those expressed in the trust-deed, a rent might be obtained. The cost of the subjects may not afford by itself a sufficient guide to the annual value; for the cost of providing such a hall for a small place like Newport may exceed the means and demands of the inhabitants to such an extent that even 3 per cent. upon such cost cannot be expected. It has accordingly been decided that cost of erection cannot be taken as the sole basis for estimating annual value. But it does not appear that Newport is so small and insignificant a place that no rent could be got for a building of this kind to be occupied for similar purposes. The accounts show that in 1882 there were receipts amounting to £96. They do not show that more might not have been obtained by a different scale of charges under judicious management, such as no doubt is exercised by the trustees. Be this as it may, however, I think that it would be clearly contrary to the statute to make annual value dependent on a balance between earnings and expenditure in such a case as this. I am of opinion that the principle of valuation adopted by the assessor, and sanctioned by the Committee, is the sound one, and that the amount modified by the Committee is reasonable. I therefore think the decision of the Committee is right.

Lord Fraser—This case has reference to a public hall, with offices, situated in Newport, in the parish of Forgan, which was erected under powers granted in the trust-deed of two persons of the name of Kerr. By this deed the trusters conveyed to trustees a piece of vacant ground in Newport upon which they were directed to build a public hall, ante-rooms, and offices for the use of the public, but “declaring that on no ground or pretext whatever shall the same be diverted to or used for any purpose whatever other than a public hall, and ante-rooms, offices, and others in connection therewith … but the same shall only be used for temporary purposes, such as lectures, concerts, assemblies, public meetings, and other public purposes not implying any permanent or prolonged occupation of the premises by any person whomsoever, or any section of the community, to the exclusion of the above public purposes.” A public hall held under such restricted conditions as these could not, as might be expected, turn out to be a profitable pecuniary institution. The accounts for the year 1880 show a difference between revenue and expenditure of £6, 3s. 11d. in favour of expenditure, and for the year 1881 the loss is £26, 10s. 4d. Thus, no revenue remains over in the hands of the trustees, the logical result of which is, according to the appellants' argument, that the annual value must be entered in the valuation roll as nothing. They were willing, however, that the hall should be entered as of the annual value of £40, and the keeper's house at £10, and the Commissioners, “under all the circumstances, fixed £80 as the fair annual value of the subjects.”

Now, if the annual value of the property which is to be entered in the valuation roll is to be held to be the same thing as the remunerative value to the particular occupier, the appellants' contention would be quite sound, and the entry in the roll should be nil. But this is an entire fallacy. The question in all these cases is, seeing that the property must be valued as it exists, is the value to be measured by the direct pecuniary profits of the occupation or by the accommodation supplied. Now, here a distinction must be drawn between private property and property held by a public body, acting in virtue of statutory powers, who have a limited right of assessment, such as water companies and gas companies, and are not merely trading companies, but statutory trustees. In such a case the value must be ascertained with reference to the restrictions imposed by the statute as to the exercise of the powers of assessment. In such a case the question is not how much rent a tenant would give if he had power to exact from the water or the gas he supplies any sum as the price thereof which he pleased, but how much a tenant would give who had no further powers of exaction from the public than those limited by the statute. We had occasion to consider this question last year in reference to The Dalbeattie Waterworks, March 1, 1882, 19 Scot. Law Rep. 568, and referring to what was then said I need not dwell further upon this particular class of cases.

But when a private individual dedicates a portion of his property for the accommodation and enjoyment of the people in his native village, under restrictions which prevent it being a remunerative occupation, the annual value in such a case must be ascertained without reference to these restrictions. The accommodation to this

Page: 435↓