Almond v Birmingham Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Civ J1220-2 |
| Date | 20 December 1965 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1965] EWCA Civ J1220-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(From: The Lands Tribunal)
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Russell
In the Matter of an Appeal from the Birmingham Local Valuation Court:
Mr. DAVID WIDDICOMBE, Q. C. and Mr. JOHN C. TAYLOR (instructed by Messrs. Swepstone Walsh & Son, Agents for Messrs. Scadding, Jessop & Co., Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Institution.
MR. A. J. IRVINE. Q. C. and Mr. WILLIAM J. GLOVER (instructed by solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Valuation Officer.
The Respondent Corporation did not appear and were not represented.
I will ask Lord Justice Russell to deliver judgment of the Court.
This appeal concerns the application of section 9 (1) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, to a hereditament described as Technical trainees' Hostel Offices and Premises the property of the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind at Court Oak Road, Harborne, Birmingham. The hereditament includes a large two-storey building erected in 1904; two separate single-storey buildings (one having covered access to the main building) erected in 195S which are workshops, training and occupation centres; some lock-up garages; a store and a gardener's shed; and a considerable area of open space. The two workshop buildings are brick-built and cover respectively 2,650 and 2007 square feet.
That sub-section is in the following terms: "For the purpose of ascertaining the gross value of a hereditament for rating purposes, no account shall be taken: (a) of any structure belonging to the Minister of Health and supplied by that minister, or (before the 31st day of August 1953) by the Minister of pensions, for the accommodation of an invalid chair, or of any other vehicle (whether mechanically propelled or not) constructed or erected for use by invalids or disabled persons; or (b) of any structure belonging to a local health authority, or to a voluntary organisation formed for any of the purposes mentioned in sub-section 1 of section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946 (which relates to the prevention of illness, and to the care and after-care of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness) and supplied for the use of any person in pursuance of arrangements made under that sub-section; or (c) of any structure belonging to a local authority, within the meaning of section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which relates to welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and other handicapped persons), or to such a voluntary organisation as is mentioned in section 30 of that act, and supplied for the use of any person in pursuance of arrangements made under the said section 29; or (d) of any structure which is of a kind similar to structures such as are referred to in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this sub-section, but does not fall within that paragraph by reason that it is owned or has been supplied otherwise than as mentioned in that paragraph".
It is accepted before us that the facts of the case fall within paragraph (c), and that if the word "structure" embraces every type of building no account should be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the gross value of the hereditament of any of the erections on the hereditament: in which case the assessment of gross value of £50 should stand. If however a more limited scope is to be attributed to the word "structure", as is contended by the Valuation Officer, only the buildings other than the large building built in 1904 can properly be ignored for the purpose of ascertaining the gross value of the hereditament: in which case the gross value is as the Lands Tribunal has held, £l,110, or slightly less because a small outbuilding was overlooked in the deduction.
The Valuation Officer reserved before us the contention that "structure" was limited in scope to matters prefabricated, temporary or removable, in which case none of the buildings on the hereditament would be embraced by the word, and the gross Yalue would be £1,450: he felt unable to argue that point in this Court having regard to its decision in Walker v. Wood (1962 1 Weekly Law Reports page 1060).
The Lands Tribunal would have decided in favour of theratepayer, adopting the widest construction of "structure", but for expressions of opinion in this Court in Jewish Blind Society Trustees v. Henning (1961 Weekly Law Reports page 24) and Walkerv wood (supra)
The provision of motor vehicles for disabled people and the provision of accommodation for such vehicles referred to in paragraph (a) are not under any statutory powers. Some explanation is needed of the arrangements under the statutes referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) refers to any structure belonging to a local health authority supplied for the use of any person in pursuance of arrangements made under section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946. That section on acts that a local health authority may with ministerial approval, and shall to an extent ministerially directed, make arrangements for the purpose of (1) the prevention of illness, (ii) the care of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness, (iii) the after-care of such persons. Paragraph (b) refers also to any structure belonging to a voluntary organisation formed for any of those three purposes which is supplied for the use of any person pursuant to such arrangements made by the local health authority; it is to be noted that section 28 (j) of the National Health service Act, 1946, enables the local authority to contribute to any such voluntary organisation, paragraph (d), in connection with paragraph (b), refers as we understand to any structure of the sort or kind that a local authority or voluntary organisation might have owned and supplied for the use of any person pursuant to such arrangements for those purposes, but which is in fact otherwise owned or supplied. Paragraph (c) is in similar terms to paragraph (b), but relates to section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948. That section empowers a local authority to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons who are blind, deaf or dumb and others who are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister. A scheme is required of such arrangements; and such schemes may include arrangements (inter alia) for providing workshops where such persons Kay be engaged (under a contract of service or otherwise) in suitable work, and hostels where persons engaged in the workshops, and other persons there described, may live: and for providing such persons with suitable work in their own homes or elsewhere; and for providing such persons with recreational facilities in their own homes or elsewhere. Section 30 refers to voluntary organisations having as objects the promotion of the welfare of persons mentioned in section 29. examples before us of schemes under section 29 in relation to blind people include references to the provision of special workshops, for work in the home, of occupational centres, social and handicraft centres, holiday and rehabilitation homes and hostel accommodation. Paragraph (d) applies to (c) as stated above in relation to (b).
Before attempting to marshal the arguments put before us by the Valuation Officer we will refer to the expressions of opinion in this Court that a limited construction is to be placed upon the word "structure". In the Jewish Blind Society trustees case the Lands Tribunal decided on the basis of the widest construction of the word. In this Court that point was not decided, because further enquiry revealed that on the facts - even on that construction - the section was not applicable. On the construction point, however, Lord Evershed, Master of the Rolls, said this at pages 29 and 30. "As appears from the decision, the argument for the valuation officer before the Lands Tribunal was that the word 'structure', which is used in the subsection, meant something different from, something less extensive than, the entire hereditament which would or might be the subject-matter of rating. The Lands Tribunal rejected this argument, applying the general definition of 'structure' which had been pronounced, in Mills & Aockleys Limited v. Leicester CITY Council,a case quite different from the present, by Lord Goddard, Chief Justice. I think this hereditament is in truth not a 'structure' within the meaning of that sub-section, although that view is not necessarily decisive in the present case for reasons which will later appear".
Then having referred to the section, he went on: "I drew attention in my citation to the opening words of the sub-section, and I further note that paragraph (&) is clearly limited to structures which are merely adjuncts to some other building. it would, I should have thought, have been most unusual and unnatural as a matter of drafting for a section to begin by first illustrating an obviously limited nature of edifice and then to as on gradually to expand the significance of the word 'structure' until it had become synonymous with the hereditament as a whole. I therefore think that the argument which the valuation officer presented to the Lands Tribunal, and which was presented to this court, is a very cogent argument, and for my part I would be prepared to hold that 'Rockfield'" (which was the name of the premises) "is not a structure within this section at all. But it is not necessary to decide that point in this case, and I therefore refrain from attempting any definition of the word 'structure' as it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandyk v Oliver (Valuation Officer)
... ... pungent judgment, the pleasure of citing their words. For in Almond's case ( Almond v. Birmingham Corporation , [1968] A.C. 37 , this House gave its approval to an ... ...
-
Vandyk v Oliver
...were common ground in the arguments before us. 15 The word "supplied" in this section means no more, than "provided" (Almond v. Birmingham Royal Institute for the Blind (1968) Appeal. Cases, per Lord Hodson at page 55F). The structure may be provided by the ratepayer himself ( Walker v. Woo......
- Royal Cross School for the Deaf v Morton
-
Assessor for Angus v Dundee Society for the Blind
...Steel Co.ELR, [1949] 1 K. B. 385;Donside Paper Co. v. Assessor for AberdeenSC, 1964 S. C. 344; Almond v. Birmingham CorporationELRELR, [1966] 2 Q. B. 395, [1968] A. C. 37; Deeside Poultry Ltd. v. Assessor for AberdeenshireSC, 1967 S. C. 328; J. Beveridge & Co. v. Assessor for Perth and Kinr......