Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[1] I agree with the Opinion of Lord Doherty and with the disposal that he proposes.
[2] Having had the benefit of reading in draft the opinion of Lord Doherty, I am in agreement, for the reasons stated therein, that this appeal be allowed and the case returned to the Committee for a rehearing.
[3] The appeal subjects are shop premises at 235 Buchannan Street, Glasgow. Following the 2005 revaluation the Assessor and professional agents for the then tenants agreed an N.A.V. of �709,800 for them. In early 2009 they were let to the respondent ratepayers. The ratepayers appealed against the entry in the valuation roll on the ground that there had been a material change of circumstances since the entry was made (Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, s. 3(4)). On 14 December 2011 the Valuation Appeal Committee at Glasgow heard the appeal. On the following day it issued its decision:
"The Committee found that the appeal subjects had been valued at the same zone A rate as certain properties in Sauchiehall Street. The Sauchiehall Street units had had their rateable value reduced by a decision of a Glasgow Valuation Appeal Committee.
The Committee agreed that the Sauchiehall Street decision was relevant and that the value of the appeal subjects had fallen in line with the value of the subjects in Sauchiehall Street.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.