Gilson Gray Successful in the Lands Valuation Appeal Court

Gilson Gray are pleased to have successfully acted for the Lothian Valuation Joint Board (the Respondents) in an appeal brought before the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.

The Background: A Long‑Standing ATM Site and a Late Challenge

The appeal concerned the site of an external ATM at 72A Raeburn Place, Edinburgh. The site had been separately entered in the 2017 Valuation Roll with a net annual value of £11,375, assessed in line with the Scottish Assessors Association’s Practice Note for remote ATM sites. No appeal was made at the time.

In February 2023, just weeks before the 2023 Revaluation Roll came into force, the appellant sought to challenge the 2017 entry. The argument was that the UK Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Cardtronics amounted to a “material change of circumstances” that required the ATM site to be deleted and absorbed back into the shop’s valuation.

This was an ambitious attempt to use an English rating decision to retrospectively rewrite the Scottish roll. The Respondent resisted the appeal, maintaining that Cardtronics had no such effect and that the statutory test for material change of circumstances had not been met.

The Key Issue: Could Cardtronics Rewrite Scottish Valuation Law?

The appellant’s case rested on the contention that Cardtronics was either a “relevant decision” under section 37(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, or at least a change of circumstances affecting value.

However, the Scottish statutory framework is deliberately narrow. The Valuation Acts are designed to keep the roll stable between revaluations, allowing alterations only in tightly defined circumstances. The list of bodies whose decisions can trigger a material change is explicit – and the UK Supreme Court is not among them.

The First‑tier Tribunal rejected the appellant’s arguments, and the case proceeded to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.

The Court’s View: A Clear and Decisive Rejection

The Court agreed with the Respondent on every point. It held that:

• The definition of “material change of circumstances” must be read purposively, in line with the policy that the roll should remain stable between revaluations.
• The UK Supreme Court is not one of the bodies whose decisions can constitute a “relevant decision” under the statute.
• Cardtronics did not alter any principle of Scottish valuation law; it simply applied established occupation principles to the facts of that case.
• Even if a UKSC decision could ever amount to a material change, this was not such a case.

In short, the appellant’s attempt to use Cardtronics as a lever to reopen a settled 2017 entry was fundamentally misconceived.

A Strong Result for the Respondent

The Court refused the appeal, endorsing the Respondent’s position in full. The separate entry for the ATM site remains, and the integrity of the Scottish valuation framework is preserved.

This outcome reinforces an important principle: Scottish valuation law is governed by Scottish legislation, interpreted by Scottish courts. Attempts to import English rating decisions wholesale into the Scottish system will not succeed unless the statutory framework permits it.

For the Assessor, this is a significant decision. It confirms the robustness of the 2017 valuation approach to remote ATM sites and provides welcome certainty for assessors across Scotland.

Authors: Iain Grant and Ava Cadenhead

For more information on this article, please contact: