Arnot Manderson Valuation for Rating specialist Jonathan Murphy, successfully appeared for the respondent in the Inner House, where the court has refused an appeal against a decision not to delete a separate valuation of the site of an external ATM.
The decision confirms that adjudicative decisions on the rating of hereditaments from other jurisdictions do not amount to material changes of circumstances under s.3(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (now s.3ZA(2)(c) (“1975 Act”). This would include decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”) on the rating of hereditaments in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. On an ordinary and natural reading of the 1975 Act, such decisions do not amount to a relevant decision nor would they constitute “in relation to lands and heritages a change of circumstance affecting value” (s.37(1) of the 1975 Act). That interpretation is consistent with the policy of the Valuations Acts that the valuation roll is frozen between revaluations, with certain strictly limited exceptions.
The court, however, acknowledged that there might be decisions of the UKSC on the interpretation of UK-wide legislation and that it was “conceivable that some decisions of that nature might affect the beneficial enjoyment” of particular categories of lands and heritages in Scotland. Such decisions might, therefore, amount to a material change of circumstance.
The court rejected a claim by the appellant that valuation for rating law and principles ought not to differ between Scotland and England. The court noted that the law of valuation for rating in Scotland is governed by different legislation, with a different apex court.
The court also rejected a claim that the decision in Cardtronics UK Ltd v Sykes [2020] UKSC 21, [2020] 1 WLR 2184 established a new principle of valuation law. The court confirmed that, on the assumption it was incorrect in its interpretation of the 1975 Act, the decision in Cardtronics would not amount to a material change of circumstances under the 1975 Act as it was not a decision in principle. Rather, Cardtronics applied established law and principles relating to rateable occupation to the facts found by the Upper Tribunal and was entirely consistent with previous decisions of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
A link to the published judgment can be found here: [2026] CSIH 3
