Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This action was brought against the defenders to try the question of their liability for Statute-Labour rates, in respect of the ground occupied by their water-pipes, and of the pipes themselves. The Act 8 and 9 Vict., c. 41 (General Statute-Labour Act), authorized the assessment of “all lands, buildings, and other heritable subjects.” The defenders argued that the pipes did not fall within this description, and that they were neither owners nor occupiers of the ground in which they were laid. The pursuers did not press their claim as regards the pipes; but as to the land occupied by the pipes, they referred to Hay v. Edinburgh Water Company, 12 D., 1240, and 1 Macq., 682. The defenders, on the other hand, contended that that case, which related to poor-rates, depended entirely on clauses in the Poor Act. The Lord Ordinary (Barcaple) found the defenders liable.

His Lordship added the following note:—“It is not disputed that if the defenders' works are liable to assessment, they must be assessed under the 13th section of the General Statute-Labour Act, 8 and 9 Vict., c. 41. No question could be raised on that point after the decision in this Court and in the House of Lords in the case of the Kilmalcom Road Trustees v. Caledonian Railway, 2 Macph. 335; 4 Macq. 937. Since the passing of the Lands Valuation Act the assessment must be imposed upon the subjects as they are valued under that Statute.

“As to the liability of the subjects, the Lord Ordinary thinks that the question is ruled by the judgment of this Court and the House of Lords in Hay v. Edinburgh Water Company, 12 D. 1240, 1 Macph. 682. The only distinction attempted to be taken between the cases is, that the assessment there in question was for poor-rates under the Boor Law Act. The Lord Ordinary does not think that there is any material difference in the provisions, or even the wording of the Statutes as to this matter. In deciding that the water works were assessable under the Poor Law Amendment Act, an argument was drawn in the House of Lords from English decisions as to the assessment of similar subjects for poor-rates. But the Lord Ordinary does not understand that this was the only ground of judgment, or that the argument was intended to be limited to assessment for poor-rates. On the contrary, he thinks the decision established the principle that such subjects, which, being held by permanent and indefeasible right, produce direct profits to the parties, although they may not be in every sense heritages or heritable subjects, are so according to the intention and meaning of the Legislature in authorising assessments to be imposed on subjects described in these general terms.

“The Lord Ordinary has followed the case of the Edinburgh Water Company in not including the water-pipes themselves in the decree of declarator. They were there, as in the present case, expressly mentioned in the conclusion, but were purposely left out of the decree. Any questions that can be raised in regard to them must relate to the proper mode of valuing the subjects.

“The defenders plead that the assessment is excessive. But they have no special statement on that subject, and nothing was said in regard to it at the debate. If they considered the valuation to be too high or improperly made, they should have taken the proper steps to obtain redress under the provisions of the Valuation Act.”

The defenders reclaimed.

Clark and Burnet for them.

Solicitor-General (Millar) and N. C. Campbell in answer.

The Court adhered.