Page 1

COUNTRY MATTERS Issue No. 9 March 2008

Welcome! Welcome to the Spring Edition of Country Matters. In this issue we begin with Matthew Farrell’s article on occupiers’ liability for people on their land. Then Alix Bearhop looks at some of the property issues landowners should think about if they are considering a wind farm development. Following this, Odell Milne reviews the North Berwick Trust case and what light that throws on agricultural tenant’s right to buy. Robin Priestley, a new arrival whom we welcome, draws attention to current Scottish Government outline proposals on updating flood prevention legislation in light of recent climate change and, finally, Bob Page considers the far reaching changes to Capital Gains Tax announced by the Chancellor in October last year.

Randall Nicol, Editor

Occupiers Beware his body, from which he was not expected to survive, and For approximately the last forty years, occupiers’ liability for people on their land has been governed by The Occupiers (Scotland) Act 1960 (the “Act”). Section 2(1) of the Act lays down the standard of care and the circumstances covered by the standard -

“The care which an occupier of premises is required, by reason of his occupation or control of the premises, to show towards the person entering thereon in respect of dangers which are due to the state of the premises or to anything done or omitted to be done on them and for which the occupier is responsible shall, except in so far as he is entitled to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude by agreement his obligations towards that person, and be such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the person will not suffer injury or damage by reason of any such danger.” It is clear from this Section that the standard of care expected of occupiers is that of a reasonable person. The occupier has to take reasonable care to ensure that the person on the premises does not suffer injury. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of each case. Generally, however, the occupier will be in breach of their duty of care when someone on the premises is injured by an act or an omission on the part of the occupier, where a reasonable person would have foreseen that such an act or omission would cause injury to someone on the premises. The following recent court decisions will help to illustrate this level of care and show how onerous the duty on the occupier under the Act can be Dunn v Carlin Mr Dunn, who was 72 years old at the time of the accident in 1992, sought damages when petrol, which one of Mr Carlin’s employees was decanting, ignited and severely burned him. Mr Dunn sustained full depth burns to 35 per cent of the surface of his body, from which he was not expected to survive, and

underwent a series of skin grafting operations. The Inner House upheld a finding of liability against Mr Carlin in respect of having exposed petrol stored on his premises. The Inner House decided that it was the exposed petrol which created the hazard and not the state of the premises themselves, clearly indicating that occupiers are liable under the Act for hazards that are not necessarily due to the bare site on its own. Black v CB Richard Ellis Management Services Ltd Mr Black slipped in a shopping mall on some water outside one of the shop units. The water had come from a leaky roof in the shopping centre. The occupiers had various precautions in place, including a system of cleaning up the water from the leaks regularly. However, it was enough for the court to decide the case in favour of Mr Black that the facts showed that CBRE knew of the leaks. Thus the question of the suitability of the precautions taken by the occupiers became crucial and on the evidence CBRE failed. There is a very high duty to mop up when you have a leaky roof. Dawson v Scottish Power An 11-year old boy was injured when he went to retrieve his football which had landed on the Defenders’ sub-station. He tried to climb over a fence and impaled his finger on a spike at the top of the fence. The fence was 6 feet high, but had effectively been reduced to 4 feet as a result of the build up of rubble. It was a matter of common sense that it was reasonably foreseeable that a boy would try to get over a fence to retrieve a ball and that 6 feet was a reasonable and safe height to prevent him, but this was not effective at 4 feet. Occupiers (and their insurers) should apply their own test of what a court might consider to be “reasonably foreseeable” and do so rigorously when carrying out risk assessments. If a source of danger is identified it is necessary to deal with it. Matthew Farrell, Solicitor





Renewable energy is becoming increasingly important in Scotland. The Scottish Government has set a target of generating 50% of Scotland's electricity from renewables by 2020.

Inevitably with a wind farm will come some restrictions on the use of land, particularly in the vicinity of turbines, so that wind supplies are not affected.


Landowners might consider provision by the developers of a fund or bond to cover the cost involved in decommissioning the wind farm, for example to guard against the possibility that the developers go bust, leaving a partially developed site or a developed site that then requires to be reinstated.

This article focuses on renewable energy supplied by onshore wind developments and looks at some of the property issues involved for landowners. The role of the landowner Landowners might opt to develop their own wind farms. Generally speaking though they choose to take the income from leases and leave such development to energy companies that have the expertise to deal with the complex issues involved, including planning, funding, construction and the ongoing operation of the completed wind farm.

What about rents/income? Assuming that the outcome of enquiries made during any option period are such that the landowners and the developers enter into a lease, let us consider four possible lease payment options ƒ

A one-off payment with no on-going rent. A substantial up front cash payment may be beneficial where the landowners need funds in hand. The landowners will not benefit, however, from the future value of wind power generated on site and the fact of the one-off payment having been made may impact on the future marketability of the land as there may be no up side for a prospective purchaser.


Fixed annual rent per turbine or per unit of power generation capacity. The landowners may not benefit from the future value of wind power generated on site but a fixed rate minimises the risk of income changes if wind levels reduce or turbines are not operational.


Fixed annual rent per turbine, or per unit of power generation capacity, plus a percentage of gross income generated. The landowner benefits from a “minimum rent” even when there are low winds and energy production is reduced or where turbines are not operating.


Percentage of gross income generated. This is a variable rent arrangement and is generally a larger percentage of the gross income generated by the turbines. The landowners benefit where income is higher but takes the risk of no income or reduced income where energy production falls for whatever reason.

Benefits for landowners As with any commercial transaction, the relative negotiating power of the parties is likely to influence the commercial terms of any option agreement and lease, as will site specific factors. The benefits of wind farm projects for landowners may include ƒ

The receipt of option fees for entering into option agreements with developers.


An income stream from any leases entered into if an energy company’s viability studies lead to the development and operation of a wind farm. See below as to possible rental arrangements.


Having an energy company construct and meet the capital cost of roads over land to allow access to the wind farm project.


Even if no turbines are actually constructed, rent for the grant of access rights.


The ability to continue to use land on which wind turbines are constructed for growing crops, grazing livestock or other purposes.

Other considerations for landowners Further considerations for landowners include ƒ


Land may be tied up for a number of years during option periods while developers navigate the planning process and carry out the necessary environmental, wind, wildlife, aircraft and other studies required to ascertain the viability of a wind farm project. There may never be a lease. During the option period, landowners may be required to secure their land in favour of the developers. Developers may be investing significant time, expertise and money on viability studies and may seek security to prevent landowners from selling land from under them, thereby potentially defeating projects.

Actual income generated can depend therefore on a number of factors including the number of turbines on land, the value of the electrical power generated and the lease rent agreed. In addition, landowners may benefit from additional payments for other structures relating to the wind farm, such as substations, maintenance buildings, access roads and transmission lines. It is worth noting that even a small wind power project, unlikely to attract a developer, may be a viable proposition for owners or long-term occupiers. A single, relatively modest turbine, correctly located, can provide power, with any surplus being sold in to the national grid.

Alix Bearhop, Associate



LEGALUPDATES Employee Injured in Informal Football Match at Employer’s Premises

Airbus UK Limited v Webb Unfair Dismissal Hearing

In Sharp v Highland and Islands Fire Board, it was held that the Fire Board was not liable for injuries incurred during an informal football match at their training school and that these could not be deemed to have resulted in the course of the injured party’s employment.

A verbal warning had previously been given by Airbus to the employee on grounds of misconduct but the warning had expired ahead of the employer’s later decision to dismiss the employee. At a subsequent unfair dismissal hearing it was held that an expired warning could be taken into account by an employer when deciding whether to dismiss an employee.

CONSULTATION ON INTEREST (SCOTLAND) BILL Responses are required by 4th April 2008 on the Interest (Scotland) Bill which it is proposed should make it easier for creditors to charge interest without going to court. With the current law, interest is not due until payment is “wrongfully withheld”, therefore from the date of raising court proceedings. The intention is that interest should automatically become payable on debt and damages payments by law with effect from the date on which payment is due.

Another Case on the Grazing of Horses In a clear judgement, the Court of Session held in McDonald v O’Donnell that where ground was included in a lease for the grazing of horses and growing hay for their winter feed, all in connection with a riding school, then the lease was a commercial one not an agricultural one, because the purpose was not agricultural.

SINGLE FARM PAYMENT DEDUCTION AFTER DEATH OF BIRDS OF PREY Under EU law the Scottish Government deducted £8,000 from a farmer’s agricultural subsidy following the conviction of his gamekeeper who trapped and poisoned birds of prey.

Consultation on Rural Housing Responses are sought by Friday 4th April 2008 to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee of the Scottish Parliament in connection with their enquiry into the situation of rural housing. The Committee wishes to hear from individuals and stakeholders who have experienced some of the key challenges to the supply of affordable rural housing.

SINGLE SELLER SURVEY APPROVED The Scottish Parliament has recently approved the draft Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 (Prescribed Documents) Regulations 2008 to introduce the compulsory seller’s survey. This will apply to residential property sales. Once in force, these regulations will have a significant effect on the processing of property sales and purchasers will need to be careful about the extent to which these surveys meet their own requirements.

Costs of Responding to Heath and Safety Executive Investigations Following a tragic accident on an Aberdeenshire estate when a person was killed by a tree he was felling for firewood, with the permission of the estate owner, the police took no further action. However, the estate has been investigated by the Health and Safety Executive who have sent a report to the Procurator Fiscal. Whether that goes any further or not the costs to the estate in time and professional advice will already have been considerable, all because of granting a favour a year and a half ago.

SINGLE FARM PAYMENT – ABOLITION OF TEN MONTH RULE It has been announced that the ten month rule for Single Farm Payment eligibility will cease with effect from 1st April 2008 and that thereafter 15th May will be the determining date when a farmer will have to have occupation of land for the purposes of Single Farm Payment. Farmers should keep an eye on the tax consequences of the change.

Animal Welfare and Transport – New EU Rules SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY SPP 3: PLANNING FOR HOUSING: CONSULTATIVE DRAFT The Scottish Government is seeking comments by 31st March 2008 on its Consultation document on proposed changes to the planning system in order to enable land to be released more easily for housing development.

Specific new EU rules applying to the movement of animals in the course of a business or trade include obtaining a competence assessment and relative certificate in the case of any journey transporting livestock, horses or poultry by road more than 65 kilometres in distance. For domestic transport, compliance with these regulations has been delayed until the end of April 2008.

© 2008 Brodies LLP This update is produced for general purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for specific legal advice. Readers should be aware that, while Brodies LLP takes great care in publishing this material, no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage except where the firm has been directly instructed to provide specific legal advice to a client. If any specific queries arise, we shall be delighted to assist.



Agricultural Tenant’s Right To Buy – Some Light In The Dark? Ever since the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 introduced a pre-emptive right to buy for tenants, there has been considerable doubt amongst lawyers, landowners, tenants and agents as to the meaning of the legislation. The recent case of Trustees of the North Berwick Trust v James B Miller & Co (2nd October 2007) in the Scottish Land Court may have provided some assistance in interpreting the three main questions that arise as a result of the wording of the legislation. These three main questions are ƒ

At what stage is the tenant’s pre-emptive right to buy triggered?


Do negotiations between the landlord and tenant trigger the tenant's pre-emptive right to buy in terms of the legislation?


Should the valuation which is to be the basis of the price paid by the tenant include “hope” or development value?

The Land Court considered each of these questions AT WHAT STAGE IS THE RIGHT TO BUY TRIGGERED? There has been much uncertainty surrounding the point at which the tenant’s pre-emptive right to buy is triggered. Views range from the belief that the right to buy is triggered when the landowner is merely considering transferring the land to a third party to the view that the right to buy does not arise until the landlord has actually served notice in terms of the legislation that he intends to transfer the land. Most solicitors and agents have been cautious because the legislation suggests that simply advertising the land for sale or discussing with a developer or developer’s agents might trigger the right to buy. On that view, landlords must be very sure that they are willing to trigger the right to buy before they take any steps whatsoever with a view to a possible sale. The right to buy is conferred on the tenant by section 28 of the 2003 Act which seems to be quite straight forward. This section states that the right to buy arises when the landlord gives notice or takes “any action with a view to the transfer of the land”. The problem is that it is difficult to know what actions of the landlord would constitute taking action “with a view to the transfer of the land”. The section states that if the owner enters “into negotiations with another party with a view to the transfer” the right to buy is triggered. In a normal sale situation, negotiation “with a view to a transfer” would take place at a comparatively early stage and would, in all likelihood, take place long before the price or extent of land to be sold is settled. Indeed, “negotiations with another party with a view to transfer” might not actually result in a contract for sale being agreed. The Land Court itself appears to realise that the provisions are not entirely satisfactory. In the case of North Berwick Trust, the Court said that it was not clear why the Scottish Parliament chose to trigger the right to buy at the earliest possible stage of negotiations or discussions “which might never bear fruit”. Nevertheless, the Land Court determined that “the right to buy is, indeed, triggered at a very early stage”. The Court considered that any discussion with a developer would trigger the pre-emptive right to buy. Although this decision may not be welcome, at least it does provide some certainty and landowners now know where they stand. Unfortunately, however, there are other questions relating to the tenant’s right to buy which remain unanswered. The legislation provides that the tenant must give notice within 28 days of receipt of a notice from the landlord that the landlord is intending to transfer the land. That provision works if the tenant receives such a notice. However, there is no guidance for a tenant who learns for himself that a landlord proposes to transfer land when he has not received a notice. In these circumstances, the Land Court suggested that a landlord

might send a notice to find out the tenant's intentions as early as possible. However, there is no certainty that procedure will be adopted so the uncertainty for the tenant remains. Another question not answered is as to what might happen if a landlord advertised property for sale and then, not satisfied with the results of the advertising, decided not to go ahead. Thus, although the Land Court has confirmed the steps which a landlord must take to trigger the right to buy, other aspects of the procedure relating to the right to buy are by no means free from doubt. DO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TENANT HIMSELF TRIGGER THE RIGHT TO BUY? Another area of doubt in relation to the right to buy centred on the possibility that if the landlord entered into negotiations with the tenant himself, that might give rise to the tenant’s right to buy in terms of the legislation. The Land Court had no trouble in determining that that view was incorrect. The Court considered that the overall purpose of the Scottish Parliament and the 2003 Act was to encourage a landlord to negotiate with his tenant. On that view, the Court considered that a landowner must be able to negotiate with his tenant without giving rise to the operation of the statutory pre-emptive right to buy. Moreover, if a landlord was to negotiate with a tenant and then, for whatever reason, decide to break off the negotiations, the Court did not consider the right to buy would be triggered. At least in this area there is now some certainty and landlords can feel free to discuss the possibility of sale with their tenants without fear that the 2003 Act procedure will be called into play. SHOULD THE VALUATION INCLUDE “HOPE” VALUE? The Land Court also considered whether or not in valuing a farm where the right to buy is triggered, “hope” or development value should be taken into account. The Court concluded that where a sitting tenant exercises the right to buy, the value of the land should be assessed on a basis which takes into account the possibility of planning permission being obtained. The Court was satisfied that “where a sitting tenant exercises a right to buy, the value of the land will have to be assessed on a basis which includes development value”. Unfortunately, the decision of the Court is of limited value and cannot be relied upon, partly because the Land Court did not hear full evidence on the issue, but also because questions of valuation are the responsibility of the Lands Tribunal which is not bound by an opinion of the Land Court. However, the opinion of the Land Court is helpful in throwing some light on the somewhat perplexing provisions of the 2003 Act relating to valuation. It is interesting to note that the Land Court itself did not find the legislation to be helpful saying “there do not appear to be any explicit provisions in the new legislation dealing with development value or with the specialities of farms with development potential”. Indeed the Land Court went so far as to suggest that the provisions somewhat naively seemed to envisage only the sale of a farm as a going concern as a working farm. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the case of Trustees of North Berwick Trust v James B Miller & Co is useful for landlords, tenants, agents and solicitors. It

confirms the stage at which the landlord’s actions trigger the right to buy and confirms that negotiations with the tenant, himself, do not trigger that right. Can the case be taken to be authority for the proposition that development value is to be taken into account in valuing the farm where the right to buy has been triggered? Probably not. That question remains unanswered and it is unfortunate that it may remain unanswered until a case on valuation is taken to the Lands Tribunal.

Odell Milne, Partner

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE AND NOT A DROP TO DRINK Water is one of the most powerful – and destructive – forces on Earth. While 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water (in either frozen or liquid form), a perennial problem for much of the human race is either too little or too much water. As our own bodies are made up of between 90% and 50% water content (decreasing with age), it is perhaps not surprising that mankind has been remarkably ingenious in finding solutions to having too little water. We have been far less successful in combating the forces of nature which bring too much water at the wrong time and in the wrong places. That flooding is an uncommonly powerful destructive force is evident to anyone who has ever been flooded or seen at close quarters what flood waters can do. Floods can destroy roads, bridges and railways, close airports, cut off power supplies and force the evacuation of whole cities (New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 being a prime example). Water can, in fact, move mountains. Yet, strangely, in the UK, despite many increasingly serious flooding incidents during the last decade or so, flood protection measures have often been well intentioned but ineffective. Alternatively, they have been frustrated by the fragmented legal responsibilities of the public authorities who are jointly responsible for flood protection and prevention. Such public bodies in Scotland currently include the Scottish Government itself, Scottish Water, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and local authorities, while private landowners also have responsibilities. The times they are a changing The current system is likely to change, according to Scottish Environment Minister, Michael Russell MSP, whose Government believes that climate change means current flood defence arrangements are no longer fit for purpose in the 21st Century. Consultation on “The Future of Flood Risk in Scotland” opened on 13 February and a draft (Scottish) Flooding Bill is promised later in 2008. We are told the Bill will introduce new measures to reform current legislation (the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961), transpose the planned EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks and provide a “modernised and sustainable approach to flood prevention with streamlined decision making”. For example, measures are proposed to ƒ

Reform the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to clarify public and private responsibilities for flood risk management.


Streamline statutory decision making processes for capital defences (particularly the flood prevention and planning processes).


Provide a portfolio of measures including rural land management, as well as “traditional” flood prevention schemes.


Coordinate available funds and measures to improve sustainable flood management in rural Scotland at a catchment scale, combine them with downstream defences, and encourage and fund small scale local solutions.


Build on the river basin planning system established under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to improve flood risk management planning at the strategic level.


Improve flood risk maps and ensure flood risk management plans are produced for all areas at significant risk of flooding.


Identify competent authorities responsible for the production of flood risk management plans.

All of this sounds particularly useful if our rainfall patterns continue to change and flooding becomes an increasingly common danger to all of us. Certainly our legislation urgently needs to be updated and public and private responsibilities for flood risk management clarified and/or simplified. The devil, as ever, will no doubt be in the detail of the proposed Flooding Bill when it is published later this year. I don’t live in a town and haven’t been flooded, so why will this affect me? The Scottish Government estimates that of approximately 2.5 million properties in Scotland, 2.9% are located within a flood zone at risk of flooding once every 200 years (a 0.5% probability). This represents 73,000 properties at risk of inland flooding and 26,000 properties in the coastal flood zone: 99,000 in total. Of course, many of these properties are in towns and cities. First of all, flooding is an issue for country dwellers and those who make their living there, because water has no respect for arbitrary manmade distinctions between town and country. Rural properties can just as often be flooded as those in the towns. Water respects nobody and nothing (except perhaps the laws of gravity and thermodynamics). Secondly, flood risk planning covers whole river basin and coastal areas, not just urban centres of population, and the statistics do not cover non-residential properties or bare land which may also carry appreciable risks of flooding. Perhaps more significantly, rural areas are where many of the most essential flood prevention or alleviation measures are likely to be required. For example, many people feel we must move away from “hard” engineered solutions such as urban flood walls and barriers (which failed so spectacularly in New Orleans and which in any case tend simply to shift the problem elsewhere downstream). Working with nature rather than against it, “soft” flood management measures can include the restoration of uplands and wetlands, and reconnecting rivers with their flood plains by the removal of dykes and bunds. That may mean “sacrificing” rural (including coastal) land to absorb flood waters so as to save urban areas from inundation, in which case those who farm or use that land should certainly have an interest in the Government’s latest thinking. Blame it on the planners? Finally, it has to be said that while much work has been done in recent years promoting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) schemes and strengthening planning policy to discourage building on flood plains this hasn’t always been so. Self-evidently many flood plains in the UK have been built on already over the years. Shortages in land supply often lead to the laws of economics defeating the laws of Town and Country planning - we are often described as an overcrowded island after all. Paradoxically, strengthening town planners’ control over flood plains is perhaps more relevant to rural areas in practice, as for flood plains in urban areas it is often too late now. If climate change brings us even more volatile weather in the future (as it already seems to be doing now) flooding is going to become an increasingly important issue to all of us. The Consultation on “The Future of Flood Risk in Scotland” will close on 23 April 2008. Appropriately enough in the new “climate change era” only online responses through the Scottish Government’s website are requested, to save resources.

Robin Priestley, Associate

Capital Gains Tax – The New Provisions In his pre-budget statement last October the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, announced some far reaching changes to the taxation of capital gains, with the main proposed changes being ƒ

The end of both taper relief and indexation allowance for disposals on or after 6 April 2008.


The introduction of a capital gains flat rate of 18% instead of the previously effective rates varying from 5% to 40%.


All assets held at 31 March 1982 will be deemed to have been acquired on that date at their open market value.


The abolition of the “halving relief” which applies to reduce deferred gains on assets which were the subject of a claim for roll-over or hold-over relief for transactions with these assets between March 1982 and 1988.


The simplification of the share identification rules.

Of these changes the most profound is a combination of the ending of both taper relief and indexation allowance with the new flat rate charge of 18%. This will apply to individuals, trustees and personal representatives. Companies are not affected by any of the proposed new changes. There are no proposed changes to the existing hold-over and roll-over reliefs currently available when either assets of a trading business are sold and the proceeds then re-invested into a trading business or when certain types of assets e.g. agricultural land and unquoted shares, are gifted, or transferred into trust. As a result of sustained pressure since his announcement in October the Chancellor has more recently announced some concessions to his original proposals, the main one being the introduction of “entrepreneurs relief”. This relief is to be based on the previous form of retirement relief which was phased out several years ago. The new relief will be available on gains arising on the disposal of a business or part of a business and gains made on the disposal of assets following the cessation of a business. The first £1m of lifetime gains that qualify for this relief will be charged to capital gains tax at an effective rate of 10%. Gains in excess of £1m will be charged at the proposed

new rate of 18%. The relief will also apply to gains on disposals of shares (and securities) in a trading company (or the holding company of a trading group) provided the individual making the disposal has been an officer or an employee of the company, or of a company in the same group of companies and owns at least 5% of the ordinary share capital of the company and that holding enables the individual to exercise at least 5% of the voting rights in the company. The new relief will also apply to trustees where they realise gains and assets used in a business. In order for the trustees to benefit the beneficiary of the trust with an interest in possession relating to those assets must be involved in carrying on the business in question, personally or as a partner. In the case of shares such a beneficiary must qualify as an officer or employee of the company. While there has been a qualified welcome to the concessions announced by the Chancellor, there is a strong feeling that the farming sector will still be hit unfairly as a result of the restrictive nature of the new relief and the loss of indexation relief, particularly if land was held in March 1982 at a then very high value. As the new entrepreneurs relief is to be based on the previous retirement relief it will therefore be necessary to distinguish between the sale or disposal of part of a business as opposed to the sale or disposal of an asset of a business. Under the previous retirement relief, and supported by tax cases, where a farmer disposed of a small acreage out of, say, a large farming unit this did not necessarily qualify for retirement relief and it would seem that the same provisions are likely to apply for the new entrepreneurs relief. The sale of small areas of land for development, while qualifying for the current capital gains tax business asset taper relief may not so qualify for this new entrepreneurs relief. Interpretation looks certain to be strict! The draft legislation has not yet been published but should be available shortly or certainly with the Budget details on 12th March. There is therefore, only a very short period of time before 6th April for taxpayers to consult with their professional advisers as to how they may be affected by these changes.

Bob Page, Senior Tax Manager

Articles By

Occupiers Beware

What’s Blowing In The Wind For Landowners?

Agricultural Tenants Right To Buy

Water, Water Everywhere And Not A Drop To Drink

Capital Gains Tax – The New Provisions

Matthew Farrell Solicitor

Alix Bearhop Associate

Odell Milne Partner

Robin Priestley Associate

Bob Page Senior Tax Manager

T 0131 656 0180 T 0141 245 6212 E E

T 0131 656 0189 E

15 Atholl Crescent, Edinburgh EH3 8HA T 0131 228 3777 F 0131 228 3878

T 0131 656 0168 E

2 Blythswood Square, Glasgow G2 4AD T 0141 248 4672 F 0141 221 9270

T 0131 656 0216 E


Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you