Image from Google Jackets

Clyde Cablevision Ltd v Assessor for Strathclyde Region

Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; (1990) SLT 857-871(15)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: LVAC 17 November 1990 Appeal from LT for Scotland decision preserving two entries in the valuation roll made by the Assessor, in respect of certain office premises and a cable television network in Glasgow. In part of the office premises there was the " head end " of the cable system, which was classified as non-rateable plant from which a cable ran through a gable wall of the office building to a distribution point from which signals were relayed through the cable network. The system was unusable without being attached to the head end. It was admitted that the relay undertaking was of a heritable character and the assessor made separate entries in the valuation roll. Assessor valued the office on the comparative principle and the relay undertaking by application of a rate per subscriber. Company appealed to LT, seeking a single entry for both the office and the rest of the undertaking and a nil valuation , contending that, as regards valuation, the revenue principle should have been
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS44021 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 44840-1001

LVAC 17 November 1990 Appeal from LT for Scotland decision preserving two entries in the valuation roll made by the Assessor, in respect of certain office premises and a cable television network in Glasgow. In part of the office premises there was the " head end " of the cable system, which was classified as non-rateable plant from which a cable ran through a gable wall of the office building to a distribution point from which signals were relayed through the cable network. The system was unusable without being attached to the head end. It was admitted that the relay undertaking was of a heritable character and the assessor made separate entries in the valuation roll. Assessor valued the office on the comparative principle and the relay undertaking by application of a rate per subscriber. Company appealed to LT, seeking a single entry for both the office and the rest of the undertaking and a nil valuation , contending that, as regards valuation, the revenue principle should have been