Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE WALLER |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Civ J0730-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 30 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. LVC/33/1974 (OL) LVC/34/1974 (OL) (Consolidated) |
[1976] EWCA Civ J0730-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
On appeal from the Lands Tribunal)
The Master of the Rolls
Lord Justice Orr and
Lord Justice Waller
MR. DAVID TRUSTRAM EVE, Q. C. and MR. GUY ROOTS (instructed by Messrs, Lawrence Jones & Co,) appeared on behalf of the First Appellants,
MR. ALAN FLETCHER (instructed by the Solicitor, Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Second Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT. Mr. Ende, appeared in person.
The Arsenal Football Club have their grounds and stands at a stadium in Avenell Road, Islington. Up till 1973, the rateable value of it was £9,250. But their peace Has then disturbed by a Mr. Ende who lives about half a mile away. He does not object to football, but he does object to people who pay too little rates. He thought that the properly of the football club was assessed at too low a rateable value. So he himself made a proposal that the rateable value should be increased from £9.250 to £60,000. The football club took strong objection to this proposal. They said that Mr. Ende had no locus stand to make such a proposal. He was a busy-body interfering in things that. did not concern him. The matter went before the local valuation Court. That Court held that he was a 'person aggrieved' who could make a proposal. They heard evidence and held that there should be an increase in the rateable value. It was nowhere near the £60,000 suggested by Mr. Ende. But it was a 50 per cent. Increase. They increased the rateable value from £9,250 to £13,900. The football club appealed to the Lands Tribunal. The Tribunal considered, as a preliminary point, whether Mr. Ende had any locus stand. They held that he had none, with the result that his proposal fell to the ground. The Lands Tribunal awarded the Football Club their costs, 60 per cent. against Mr. Ende and 40 per cent, against the valuation officer. Seeing that the Football Club were represented by leading and junior counsel, these costs must operate as a very considerable penalty on Mr. Ende for venturing to say that he was a person aggrieved.
The Material Section
Section 69(1) of the General Rate Act, 1947 , says that: "… any person (including a rating authority) who is aggrieved…. (b)by any value ascribed in the list to a hereditament….may, at any time, make a proposal for the list so far as it relates to that hereditament."
Mr. Ende complains of the value ascribed in the valuation list (for the Ialington rating area) to the hereaditment of the Arsenal Football Club described as 'Football Ground, Stands and Offices' rateable value £9,250.
Was Mr. Ende a 'person aggrieved'? He says that he is aggrieved (i) as a ratepayer in Lalington; (ii) as a ratepayer in Hackney of amounts for which precepts in have been issued by other bodies; (iii) as a taxpayer.
To understand these different capacities, I must explain that Greater London is divided into several boroughs. Each borough (such as Islington or Hackney) is a separate rating area. Each Borough Council is the rating authority for its own rating area. Its function as a rating authority is to make a rate (of so many pence in the £) on the hereditaments in the Borough: and to levy that rate by demanding it of the occupiers and getting it paid by them. But the Borough Council do not value the hereditaments. Ever since 1948 the valuation has been done by the Inland Revenue. This was ordained by Parliament so as to ensure the uniformity of values throughout the country. The rates which are levied by the Borough are required for two purposes:- First, there are the sums required for the Borough itself for its own local purposes, especially housing, secondly, there are the sums required by other bodies, such as the Greater London Council for education and other purposes, and by the Metropolitan Police for police purposes. These additional sums are collected by means of 'precepts' issued by the Greater London Council and the police to the Boroughs.
By these precepts the Greater London Council and the Police require each Borough to collect monies (of so many pence in the £) as part of the rates. The same pence in the pound for every part of the Greater London Council area, that is, for every borough in the area. The precepts account for two-thirds of the total money collected, with the remaining one-third for the Borough itself.
I must also mention the 'Support Grants'. They arise because some parts of the country are much poorer than others. Many Borough Councils cannot raise enough money from their rates. They have to be supported by the Central Government. 'Support Grants' are made which are provided out of the revenue from taxpayers.
The Grievance
Mr. Eve, Q. C. for the Arsenal Football Club, urged us to hold that a person could not be said to be 'aggrieved' unless his grievance was of a kind which had some demonstrable effect on his pocket, rights, or interests, particularly singled out from those of the public generally. He said that, no matter whether Mr. Ende was a ratepayer, or In the precepting area, or a taxpayer, he had no locus stand unless he could show that the under-assessment of the Arsenal Football Club had some demonstrable effect on him. I cannot accept this contention. It is contrary both to the principle and authority.
On principle it is plain that a ratepayer (who is correctly assessed) is a 'person aggrieved' if other hereditaments are assessed at too low a figure, because it will mean that the occupiers of them are contributing too little towards the general expenditure. It will mean that, to meet the total bill, he, the ratepayer, will have to contribute mare than his fair share. The rate (of so much in the £) will have to be a higher figure in order to cover the total expenditure. Spread over a large area, it may be only a very little higher: or perhaps no higher at all: than it otherwise would be. It may not be demonstrable that the under-assessment has any effect on the pocket, rights or interests of any other ratepayer. Yet each of them is a person aggrieved.
As to authority, there are Statutes from 1743 onwards which have given a remedy to a person aggrieved by an under-assessment. Under these Statutes the Courts have held repeatedly that any ratepayer in a rating area, is a 'person aggrieved' if any other ratepayer or ratepayers are assessed at too low a figure. Mr. Alan Fletcher collected for us an impressive anthology where judges have treated this as obvious. I will quote them because they contain much useful information. They start in 1812. Six ratepayers at Horsham complained that several other ratepayers (whom they named) "were rated at much less, and not enough in proportion to the six, for the premises in their occupation." It was held that each one separately had a grievance: and so did all six jointly, for which all six could join in an appeal to Quarter Sessions - see The King v. The Justices of Sussex (1812) 15 East 206. In 1922, at the instance of 127 rate-payers, Lord Trevethin, C. J. said that the valuation committee "have no discretion to discriminate between two properties of the same character and to Impose a higher rate upon the one than upon the other", see Double v. Assessment Committee of Southampton (1922) 2 K. B. p. 225. In that same year, Lord Justice Atkin said of a ratepayer:"… if he is going to complain that those other premises are assessed too low, he must give the occupier notice of the Intended objection", see Pointer v. Norwich Assessment Committee (1922) 2 K. B. at p. 477. In 1930 Mr. Justice Talbot said that there was a "right given to complain of the insufficient assessment of a number of persons in any rate, and to Include them all in one appeal", and that it was a public duty of the valuation committee to take proceedings to have them increased "which it is hardly ever worth the pecuniary outlay for an Individual ratepayer to undertake", see Glamorgan County Valuation Committee v. Barry (1931) 1 K. B. at p. 171. And the Ladles Hosiery Case (1932) 2 K. B. 679 shows that, if a ratepayer complains that similar premises are " assessed lower than his own (his own being correct) his remedy is to ask for the others to be increased up to his level, not for his to be lowered to theirs - see Lord Justice Scrutton at p. 686, and by Lord Justice Slesser at p. 694. Then in 1937, Lord Justice Homer puts this Instance: "Suppose that in the Falmouth area, every dwellinghouse except one was undervalued, no one, I suppose, could doubt that the owner of the one would be a party 'aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 37 of the 1925 Act, and could apply to the assessment committee to have the valuations of the other dwellinghouses in the area raised to the proper level", see R. v. Cornwall (1957) 2 K. B. at p. 239. There are cases too which show the rating authority can take remedial proceedings, not only as rating authority but also as being itself a ratepayer. "As a ratepayer itself it might be aggrieved within section 37", see Hex v. Horsham and Worthing Assessment Committee (1937) 2 K. B. at p. 419 by Lord Hewart, L. J.; and at p. 423 by Mr. Justice Singleton. Similarly since the new system was introduced in 1948 (transferring valuation to the Revenue) Lord Goddard, C. J. said; "If the Corporation thinks that an amendment to the valuation list is required, the Corporation, as the Corporation Interested in the fair and proper rating of the City of Liverpool, as a ratepayer and as the rating authority in Liverpool, is under a duty to see that a proposal for amendment is made", see Grainger v. Liverpool Corporation (1954) 1 K. B. at p. 359. Then in 1960 Lord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende
...rates. There are many cases in which judges have treated that as obvious; Lord Denning, M.R. in his opinion in the instant appeal [ 1976] 3 W.L.R. 508, 514 mentioned a number of these cases and 1 agree with him that they amount to "an impressive anthology". It is true that none of them is ......
-
Cook v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
... ... aggrieved is provided by the decision of the House of Lords in Arsenal Football Club Ltd. v. Smith (Valuation Officer) and Another [1979] A.C.1 ... ...
- R v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Chetnik Developments Ltd
-
Walton v Scottish Ministers
...because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests." 84 As Lord Fraser of Tullybelton made clear in Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende [1979] AC 1, 32, the meaning to be attributed to the phrase will vary according to the context in which it is found. It is therefore ne......