Scottish Court of Session Decisions

At a meeting of the Valuation Committee of the county of Sutherland, held at Golspie on 14th September 1923, Harold M'Corquodale, Torrish, Helmsdale, appellant, appealed against the following entry in the valuation roll for 1923–24, viz.—

Parish of Kildonan.

No.	Description and Situation of Subject.	Proprietor.	Tenant and Occupier.	Yearly Rent or Value.
173	Angling, river Helmsdale	Harold M'Corquodale, per J. Sutherland, tor estate agent, Dornoch	Proprietor	£1160

and craved that the valuation be reduced to £720.

The Committee having fixed the annual value at the sum of £812 the appellant obtained a Case for appeal.

The Case stated—“The following facts were admitted or found to be proved by the Committee:—1. The river Helmsdale has a course of about 20 miles through the Strath of Kildonan, entering the sea at the village of Helmsdale. It is a famous and early river, most attractive to anglers, and maintaining a reputation for good sport hardly equalled in Scotland. The angling in the river Helmsdale and salmon fishings in the estuary of the river, as well as in the sea from the Ord of Caithness to Lothbeag Point, belong to six pro indiviso proprietors, of whom appellant is one. The river is divided into twelve beats and the beats are fished by the proprietors in rotation. They have equal interests in the river and also in the salmon sea fishings. 2. The appellant in 1919 purchased ( a) lands of Torrish, ( b) l/6th share of angling in river Helmsdale, and ( c) l/6th share of salmon net fishings for the sum of £26,000. 3. Prior to 1900 the salmon sea coast fishings were let to Messrs J. Sellar & Sons, and the salmon net fishings at the mouth of the river were worked by the Duke of Sutherland, the then proprietor, but in 1900 the salmon net fishings at the mouth of the river Helmsdale and also on the sea coast from the Ord of Caithness to Lothbeag were let to the Helmsdale angling tenants at a rent of £450, and these tenants continued to pay that rent up to 1919 when they purchased the salmon net fishings, and their names were entered as proprietors in the valuation, rolls for the county at the same yearly rent or value. Two of the Helmsdale river proprietors are the Duke of Sutherland and the Duke of Portland, who are also proprietors respectively of Badanloch and Suisgill, and who have let their right of angling in the river Helmsdale along with shootings, and consequently have not appealed against the salmon net fishings being included in the valuation roll at £450. The actual rents received by them from the tenants are entered in the valuation roll. [A table was appended showing the entries in the cases of actual lets in the valuation rolls of the county of the shootings and angling of Badanloch and Suisgill for the years mentioned.] 4. That the salmon net fishings at the mouth of the river Helmsdale and on the sea coast from the Ord of Caithness to Lothbeag Point have not been worked since 1900, and that in 1900 they were let by the Duke of Sutherland, the then proprietor, to the river angling tenants at £450 per annum, and have appeared annually in the valuation rolls since that year at that figure, 5. That there has been no increase in the rent or yearly value as appearing in the valuation rolls of the county of the angling of the river Helmsdale since the salmon net fishings ceased to be worked. 6. Prior to 1919, when the appellant purchased the estate of Torrish and shootings and angling pertaining thereto, he was tenant thereof from the Duke of Sutherland, and the yearly rent or value appearing in the valuation rolls prior to that date for same was £800, 19s. 9d., and this figure continued to be entered in subsequent valuation rolls with appellant entered as proprietor. In 1922–1923 the entry in the valuation roll of that year was—Shootings and Angling, Torrish; Proprietor, H. M'Corquodale; Tenant, Proprietor; £800. 7. That the valuation roll entry applicable to appellant's 1/6th pro indiviso share of the river angling in 1922–23 was £500; that said figure of £500 was not based on lets by the appellant, but as during the season 1923—11th January to 30th September—the appellant let part of his angling, the assessor resolved to assess on the basis of these lets and the appellant made no objection to the principle. 8. That the anglings were let by the appellant for—

February	£75	0	0
March	150	0	0
April (first week)	37	10	0
June	200	0	0
July	200	0	0
				£662	10	0
From which there is deducted for ghillies				55	0	0
				£607	10	0

That the assessor's estimate of the value of the unlet anglings accepted by the appellant is—

3 weeks April	£112	10	0
May	150	0	0
				262	10	0
Carry forward,				£870	0	0
Brought forward,				£870	0	0

Page: 237↓

That the assessor's estimate for the remainder of the season, viz,, January, August, and September, is—

January	£40	0	0
August and September	250	0	0
				290	0	0
				£1160	0	0

That the appellant proposes for these months as follows:—

January	£0	0	0
August and September	150	0	0

And that the assessor and appellant are at issue as to whether £1160 or £1020 should be taken as the angling value, from which the appellant claimed the following deductions:—

1/6th of wages to river watchers, amounting to £422, 18s. 9d., as per abstract of wages	£70	9	10
1/6th of expenditure on hatcheries, amounting to £87, 9s. 6d., as per note of expenditure on hatcheries	14	11	7
and 1/6th of expenditure on boats, bridges, &c., amounting to £44, 3s. 3d., as per note of expenditure on boats,&c.	7	7	3

and also occupier's rates.

The appellant further claimed a deduction of £75, being l/6th share of £450, the yearly value of salmon net fishings at the mouth of the river Helmsdale and the sea coast from the Ord to Lothbeag Point, and l/6th of the rates of the salmon net fishings (owners’ and occupiers’), amounting last year to £267, 1s. 8d., of which l/6th is £44, 10s., if the salmon net fishings continue to be entered in the valuation roll at £450. 9. That the assessor's estimate of the yearly value of the angling of the river Helmsdale, so far as belonging to the appellant, in the months of January and August and September is fair and reasonable, and that from the grounds of appeal lodged it appears the appellant is not now contesting the assessor's estimate of the value of the angling during these months. 10. That the Helmsdale angling proprietors appealed against the salmon net fishings remaining in the valuation roll at £450, claiming that same should be entered at nil in respect that they were not worked, but at the hearing of the appeal it was intimated that two out of the six pro indiviso proprietors, namely, the Duke of Sutherland and the Duke of Portland, were not appealing. That the appeal was dismissed, and accordingly the salmon net fishings continue to be entered in the valuation roll at £450. 11. That the average catch by rods on the river Helmsdale from 1882 to 1900—nineteen years—during the time the salmon net fishings were worked and before the dams and hatcheries referred to were erected, was 864, and the average catch from 1901 to 1904 inclusive after the salmon net fishings ceased to be worked was 860. The dams at Badanloch and Loch-an-Ruathair were erected in 1902 and 1903 respectively. 12. That the evidence adduced by appellant did not support his contention that there was any improvement in the catch in the river subsequent to 1900, when the salmon net fishing at the mouth of the river and in the sea ceased to be worked. That so far as the values of the angling in the river are concerned it was proved that there has been no increase in the yearly rent or value since 1900.”

The Case further stated—“The Valuation Committee having considered the facts admitted or proved, the evidence adduced, the productions lodged, the whole circumstances of the case, and having heard the appellant's agent and assessor thereon, allowed appellant's claim for deduction of occupier's rates from the gross yearly rent or value of the angling, and accordingly reduced the assessor's valuation from £1160 to £812, and disallowed the deductions claimed by the appellant for 1 6th share of expenditure on river watchers, hatcheries, and boats, as per statements lodged by appellant, and appended hereto, in respect that such payments were made by the proprietor for the protection or improvement of his own property, and that such payments do not form proper deductions from the gross rent, and also disallowed the deductions claimed by appellant in respect of the salmon net fishings appearing in the valuation roll at £450, on the ground that the appeal against this entry in the valuation roll was dismissed, and also on the ground that these salmon net fishings must be entered in the valuation roll at their yearly rent or value although not worked by proprietors.”

Argued for the appellant—The question was, What was the lettable value of the subjects in the case? and in order to ascertain the actual value of the angling it was important to consider whether the net fishings at the mouth of the river were being carried on. This the Valuation Committee had failed to do. An allowance by way of deduction from the rent ought to be made in respect of these net fishings. The rent paid by the tenant was a composite sum, and included payment for the various services rendered by the landlord over and above the enjoyment of the salmon fishings on the river. The tenant was paying, inter alia, for a guarantee that the net fishings would not be used. Where, as here, the tenant was provided with special facilities for catching salmon, which he was also prepared to pay for, the expense of providing them was a proper subject for deduction. Further, where, as here, the landlord supplied the services of river watchers the same reasoning applied. What the river watchers were protecting was not the heritage but the fruits of it, and in the tenant's interest. Similarly the expense connected with the working of dams and sluices were proper deductions, since without these the tenant would not obtain the sport he paid for. The following cases were cited:— Dee Salmon Fisheries Company, Limited v. Assessor for Aberdeen, 1915 S.C. 790, per Lord Salvesen at p. 786, 52 S.L.R. 178; Lord Midleton v. Assessor for Boss-shire, 1882, 10 R. 28, 19 S.L.R. 564;

Page: 238↓

Baird, 1861, 24 D. 1456; Assessor for Elginshire v. Duke of Richmond and Gordon, 1905, 7 F. 424, 42 S.L.R. 512.

Argued for the assessor—There was no evidence that the discontinuance of the netting had improved the value of the rod fishing. There was no increase in the number of salmon taken since the netting stopped. The inference therefore was that any improvement there might be was due to the construction of hatcheries and dams, but these items of expenditure were entirely proprietor's outlays for the purpose of preserving the heritable subject. As regards watchers, their duties were entirely different from those of ghillies, whose services were required by the tenant, and their wages therefore were not fairly deductible, being simply expenditure by the proprietor to prevent poaching. They were employed to maintain the value of the heritable subject in the interest of the landlord. Any services they might render to tenants would if they existed at all be very trifling. The expense connected with the upkeep of boats and the payments for killing vermin were not deductible, as none of these items were incurred for the improvement of the fishing. Reference was made to Armour on Rating (2nd ed.), p. 74, and to Leith v. Leith, 1862, 24 D. 1059.