BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Clyde Navigation Trustees v. Assessor for the County of Lanark [1866] ScotLR 1_139 (5 February 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0139.html Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 1_139, [1866] SLR 1_139 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 139↓
Question as to the valuation of quay belonging to the Clyde Trustees.
This was an appeal by the Clyde Navigation Trustees against an entry in the valuation roll of the county of Lanark of £4061 as the value of Mavisbank Quay, being a portion of the harbour of Glasgow, situated in the parish of Govan, and beyond the boundary of the city, and of which they are entered as proprietors and occupiers. In this appeal the question was raised for the first time as to the principle on which the quays and wharves on the river Clyde are to be valued. It appeared that the valuation included the buildings and erections on the quay in question, and that it had been arrived at and determined by the assessor on the basis of the revenue of the trust as follows:—
Revenue for year ended 30th June 1864—
Dues on vessels
£23, 656 8 10
„ goods
76,473 0 11
£100, 129 9 9
One-half assumed as applicable to quays
£50,064 0 0
Add crane dues—net
£1,357 0 0
„ Transit sheds
84 0 0
„ Water „
50 0 0
1,491 0 0
£51,555 0 0
Deductions—
Harbour — Master's department
£1,551 4 6
Lamps
1,582 13 9
Police
3,123 15 6
£6,257 13 9
Proportion of general expense
4,325 0 0
10,582 0 0
£40,973 0 0
Tenants' profits—20 per cent on net revenue
8,194 0 0
Carry forward,
£32,779 0 0
Brought forward,
£32,779 0 0
Deduct annual value of offices in Robertson Street
360 0 0
Which leaves the sum of
£32,419 0 0
applicable for distribution amongst the different parishes in which the harbour is situated, according to the length of quay in each.
The total length of the quays, wharves, &c., is 4359 lineal yards; and as Mavisbank Quay is 546 yards in length, the proportion of the total sum of £32,419 applicable to it is £4061.
It also appeared that that portion of the river Clyde lying below Stockwell Bridge, and under the management of the trustees, is, for the levying of dues on goods and vessels, divided by their Acts of Parliament into three stages—the first or lowest stage extending from Newark Castle to the mouth of the Dalmuir Burn, a distance of about ten miles; the second from Dalmuir Burn to the old ferry of Renfrew, a distance of about 3
miles; and the highest, from a point opposite Elderslie House to the Hutchesontown Bridge, a space of about 5 3 8 miles in length. According as ships passed one or other of these stages, a different proportion of rates was exigible. For each of the first two of these stages the proportion of dues leviable was one-sixth of the whole; whilst for the third stage it was two-thirds of the whole. (Clyde Navigation Consolidation Act, 21 and 22 Vict., c. 149, sec. 99.) The whole dues, both on goods and vessels, are exigible although the vessels do not enter the harbour. The total length of the harbour and river is 18 3 8 miles; and the lowest and middle stages are situated in the counties of Renfrew and Dumbarton. 1 2
Mr Gifford, for the appellants, contended that the valuation put upon Mavisbank Quay was excessive, and greatly beyond the sum at which the subjects might in their actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, and that the subjects ought not in any view to be entered at more than £2480.
In support of this view it was argued:—
1. That in terms of the decision of the Court of Session in the case of
Adamson v. Clyde Trustees, 26th June 1863, M'Ph. 974, resulting from the oldest case of the same name,
22 D, 606, the assessor is not entitled to take into account, in valuing the quays, the revenue payable in respect of the waterway of either the river or harbour, but only “such dues, rates, and duties
as can be shown to be payable in whole or in part in return for the use of, and the accommodation afforded by, the quay.” That he has not so limited his estimate, but has taken into account the whole dues and rates leviable by the trustees on the total length of the river and harbour under their management and jurisdiction, extending to 18
2. That while the assessor assumes one-half of the revenue to be a fair deduction for waterway, the result of his process of valuation is really to allow only one-fourth on this account, inasmuch as, paying no regard to the statutory division of the dues, he takes the two-sixths payable for the lower stages, and includes them in the gross sum before giving any deduction; thus:—
The gross revenue from dues on the 18
miles of river is as nearly as may be £100,000 Of this there is earned in the highest stage £66,666
And in the two lower stages—one-
sixth each 33,334
By including this latter sum, and then taking it off again with only one-sixth in addition (or £16,664) from the earnings of the upper stage, he leaves
Page: 140↓
3. If the revenue of the river is adopted as the test for ascertaining the annual value of the quays in the harbour, only the revenue earned within the parish of Govan should be taken into account. But even if the whole revenue earned within the high stage should be taken, the amount is £66,666; and from this should be deducted, according to the assessor's own principle, one-half as the revenue of the waterway, the remainder—viz., £33, 334—being considered as the gross valuation of the quays and wharves in the harbour, subject to deduction of expenses, and amounting to about £9172; and to a further deduction of 20 per cent. for tenants' profits, leaving a sum of about £19,801 to represent the total valuation of the quays. The total length of the quays being 4359 yards, that of Mavisbank Quay being 54 yards, £2480 would be the proportion payable as its annual value.
4. If this mode of valuation be not adopted, the appellants are willing to concur in a rent at the same rate per mile for the third stage, as is admitted to have been fixed by the Legislature for the second stage. That stage is but 3
5. Further, in determining what is a proper deductional allowance for the waterway, the extensive nature of the operations of widening, deepening, and improving the river and harbour must be kept in view. These, including the purchase of land thrown into the waterway, have involved an expenditure of considerably upwards of £1,000,000 sterling, while the cost of the works in the harbour liable to assessment has not exceeded one-half of that sum, notwithstanding that many of them have been more than once entirely renewed. A rent for the waterway, based on these proportions, would bring out a result almost similar to that proposed by the appellants.
6. By the assessor's method the extraordinary result is brought out of the trustees being liable to have the same valuation put upon their property in any one of all the parishes through which the river passes; for as the gross valuation has no reference to the extent of quayage, but would apply to 4 yards equally as to 4000, the assessor in any one parish, where a quay or landing-place is situated, however small, would be entitled to value it precisely in the same way as the assessor has done in the present case. Had there been only the Mavisbank Quay in the harbour of Glasgow, the assessor would have concentrated the entire gross rental upon it. The rental could not have been increased, although the river had been lined with quays along its whole length.
7. In the event of the dues on vessels or goods being adopted as a criterion or data for ascertaining the rent of the quays, &c., the appellants claimed that the cost of dredging the harbour and along the quays should be deducted from such rent, as an expense necessarily incurred from day to day to keep a way open to the quays which would, unless continuously dredged, very soon be inaccessible for vessels. This cost should be deducted (1) whether it is to be held as part of the necessary expense of a tenant in keeping clear the way to the subjects let, and the amount of which he would take into consideration in fixing his rent; or (2) whether it is to be held as a charge upon the river and waterway of the harbour, in which case an extra proportion of the dues would fall to be allocated on the river, to compensate the expense of dredging the harbour. This claim should be allowed either by the Valuation Court or by the parochial boards, but both have refused to make the deduction—each deciding that it falls to be dealt with by the other. The cost under this head is upwards of £10,000 per annum.
To these arguments it was stated, for the assessor, in the case prepared for the opinion of their Lordships, that in proceeding to estimate the annual value of such subjects as the quays and wharves belonging to the Clyde Trustees, which are situated in different parishes, he could only, as in the case of a gas or water company, deal with the subjects in cumulo, and having ascertained the nett value of the whole, apportion the amount according to the length of quay in each parish. With regard to the objections offered to the mode of valuation followed by him, the assessor contended that the plan of dividing the river into stages appeared to have been adopted with the view of enabling the trustees to levy rates on vessels entering the lower stages of the river, for the purpose of proceeding to the harbours of Dumbarton, Bowling, or Renfrew; that the revenue with which he had dealt was that derived solely from vessels which had entered the harbour, and made use of the quays, &c., belonging to the Clyde Trustees; that he was justified in so doing, as the quays must be looked upon as the producing subject, but inasmuch as the harbour and quays, without the river as a means of access, would be of as little value as would the river even in its present state were there neither harbour nor quays to which vessels could come, and as the trustees themselves do not undertake to separate the dues, and show what amount is paid for the use of the quays, and what for the use of the river and harbour waterway, he considers that in allocating the revenue as applicable in like proportion to each, he has done what is both fair and reasonable, unless the trustees can prove that the sum allocated is insufficient to maintain the river and harbour waterway in their present state.
Their Lordships without deciding either way remitted to the commissioners to make further inquiries.
Counsel for Trustees— Mr Gifford.
