Scottish Court of Session Decisions

LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION

[2015] CSIH 6

XA167/14

Lord President

Lord Menzies

Lord Malcolm

 

OPINION OF THE LORD PRESIDENT

in the Motion

by

HISTORIC SCOTLAND EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Appellant;

against

THE ASSESSOR FOR THE HIGHLAND AND WESTERN ISLES

VALUATION JOINT BOARD

Respondent:

For the appellant:  MacIver;  Morton Fraser LLP

For the respondent:  Clarke QC;  Glasgow City Council

 

8 January 2015

Introduction

[1]        On 23 April 2014 the Highland and Western Isles Valuation Appeal Committee (the Committee) refused an appeal by the appellant against the entry in the Roll at the 2010 Revaluation relating to Urquhart Castle and Visitor Centre at Drumnadrochit, Inverness-shire.  The appellant has appealed to this court.  The appeal has yet to be heard.

 

The motion
[2]        The appellant has enrolled the following motion:

“On behalf of the Appellants, Historic Scotland, to remit to the Highland and Western Isles Valuation Appeal Panel the Stated Case dated 2 December 2014, with instructions to the Committee to insert into the Stated Case a summary of the Submissions for the Appellants and non-controversial findings in fact in respect of the comparable subjects referred to by the Appellants in evidence before the Committee at the hearing on 22 and 23 April 2014, and to dispense with the period of intimation on the basis that answers have not yet been lodged.”

 

 

The procedural rules

The form of the stated case

[3]        A stated case under the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Acts must set out the Committee’s findings in fact together with its determination on those facts (Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act 1879, s 7) and a statement of the reasons for its decision (Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, s 14).  It must also set out the grounds of appeal and the replies to those grounds “in such terms as shall be submitted to [it] by the parties” (1879 Act, s 9). 

[4]        It is not sufficient for the Committee merely to state findings in fact that are relevant to its decision.  It should also state findings in fact that are relevant to the appellant’s case (Ass for Grampian Region v Union Grain Storage (Aberdeen) Ltd 1989 SLT 361), particularly where those facts are undisputed (Ass for Glasgow v Schuh Ltd 2012 SLT 903; Belhaven Brewery Co Ltd v Ass for Ayrshire VJB 2014 CSIH 89).  Where evidence has been recorded at the hearing before the Committee, a certified transcript of the evidence must be submitted along with the case (1879 Act, s 9; cf also Valuation Appeal Committee (Procedure in Appeals under the Valuation Acts) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 (SI No 572), reg 16).

 

Representations against the draft stated case
[5]        When the draft stated case is issued to parties, either party may lodge with the Clerk to the Committee representations in writing that any finding in fact “or other statement contained in the draft stated case” should be deleted or altered;  or that additional findings in fact or other statements should be included (Act of Sederunt (Valuation Appeal Rules Amendment) 1982 (SI No 1506), rule 6). 

 

Powers of this court

[6]        This court has the power to remit the case to the Committee with such instructions as it may consider necessary for having the case more fully stated (ibid). 

 

The stated case in its present form
[7]        The stated case sets out 22 findings in fact;  the decision of the Committee;  the detailed reasons of the Committee for its decision, which include an analysis of the valuation methodology adopted by each party; the grounds of appeal and the assessor’s replies to them.  It does not set out findings in fact relating to the comparisons on which the appellant relied before the Committee.  The appellant lodged representations to the Committee on the terms of the draft stated case.   It proposed 12 additional findings in fact (No 6/10 of Process), all of which related to its comparisons and all of which were uncontroversial.  These were not accepted by the Committee.

[8]        The transcript includes the closing submissions of counsel for the parties.  In the statement of the reasons for its decision the Committee also specifies its reasons for rejecting the case for the appellant.  In doing so it deals with the submissions for the appellant point by point. 

 

The motion

The parties’ submissions

[9]        Counsel for the appellant cited Halfords Ltd v Ass for Strathclyde Region (1988 SLT 134) in support of the proposition that the Committee had a duty to include in the stated case a concise summary of the submissions for the parties.  In my view, that is not so.  There is no statutory requirement that a stated case should include a record of the parties’ submissions.  In Halfords Ltd v Ass for Strathclyde Region (supra) the stated case contained a recital of the submissions for the appellant that ran to 28 pages.  That case merely tells us that if the Committee refers to the submissions in the stated case, it should do so concisely.  Counsel contended that the appellant was disadvantaged by the failure of the Committee to record his submissions.  I disagree.  The transcript gives us a verbatim account of the submissions.  These are summarised in the course of the Committee’s statement of its reasons.  The appellant is not disadvantaged in any way by the terms of the stated case.  In my view, the motion is misconceived on this point.

 

The appellant’s proposed findings in fact

[10]      The appellant’s representation on the draft stated case set out proposed findings in fact that were material to its case and were undisputed.  In light of the views that this court has expressed on the subject (supra), the Committee should have accepted these proposed findings and included them in the stated case.  The complaint by counsel for the appellant on this point is therefore well-founded.

 

Disposal

[11]      The motion invites us to return the case to the Committee for revision.  That, in my view, would cause needless delay.   I propose that we should simply deal with the appeal on the basis of the stated case in its present form, supplemented by the uncontroversial findings in fact to which we have referred.  They are set out as proposed findings [19] to [30] in No 6/10 of process.  On that basis I propose that we should refuse the motion. 

LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION

[2015] CSIH 6

XA167/14

Lord President

Lord Menzies

Lord Malcolm

 

OPINION OF LORD MENZIES

in the Motion

by

HISTORIC SCOTLAND EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Appellant;

against

THE ASSESSOR FOR THE HIGHLAND AND WESTERN ISLES

VALUATION JOINT BOARD

Respondent:

For the appellant:  MacIver;  Morton Fraser LLP

For the respondent:  Clarke QC;  Glasgow City Council

 

 

8 January 2015

[12]      I agree with the Opinion of his Lordship in the chair and I have nothing further to add.

LANDS VALUATION APPEAL COURT, COURT OF SESSION

[2015] CSIH 6

XA167/14

Lord President

Lord Menzies

Lord Malcolm

 

OPINION OF LORD MALCOLM

in the Motion

by

HISTORIC SCOTLAND EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Appellant;

against

THE ASSESSOR FOR THE HIGHLAND AND WESTERN ISLES

VALUATION JOINT BOARD

Respondent:

For the appellant:  MacIver;  Morton Fraser LLP

For the respondent:  Clarke QC;  Glasgow City Council

 

 

8 January 2015

[13]      I am in complete agreement with the Opinion of his Lordship in the chair and have nothing further to add.