For appellant: Connal QC, Solicitor Advocate; McGrigors

For respondent: Stuart, QC; Simpson & Marwick

10 December 2010

[1] The appeal subjects are the site of an automated telling machine (ATM) at a Sub Post Office at 77 Cross Arthurlie Street, Barrhead. The subjects are described in the Roll as "Site of Autoteller." The occupier of the site is identified as the Bank of Ireland. The assessor entered the subjects in the Roll at an NAV/RV of £4,500, but the parties are agreed that the correct figure should be £2,750. The appellant appealed against the entry on the ground that the subjects are not in separate rateable occupation. By a decision dated 10 December 2009 the Renfrewshire Valuation Appeal Committee refused the appeal. That is the decision appealed against.

[2] The contractual structure involving the Bank, the Post Office and the sub-postmaster in this case is identical to that which I have described in Ass for Central Scotland VJB v Bank of Ireland (2010 CSIH 91) which we heard with this case. The facts regarding the siting and usage of the ATM are substantially the same.

[3] For the reasons that I have given in my Opinion in that case, I consider that the subjects were rightly entered in the Roll

[4] I propose to your Lordships that we should refuse the appeal.

For appellant: Connal QC, Solicitor Advocate; McGrigors

For respondent: Stuart, QC; Simpson & Marwick

10 December 2010

[5] I agree with your Lordship in the chair that for the reasons given in this and in the related case of Ass for Central Scotland VJB v Bank of Ireland, the subjects were rightly entered in the Roll. Accordingly I agree with your Lordship that we should refuse the appeal.

For appellant: Connal QC, Solicitor Advocate; McGrigors

For respondent: Stuart, QC; Simpson & Marwick

10 December 2010

[6] Under reference to our opinions in the related case of Ass for Central Scotland VJB v Bank of Ireland, I agree that the appeal should be refused.