Barrs v British Wool Marketing Board

JurisdictionScotland
Judgment Date18 January 1957
Docket NumberNo. 6.
Date18 January 1957
CourtCourt of Session (Inner House - First Division)

1ST DIVISION.

Lord Strachan.

No. 6.
Barrs
and
British Wool Marketing Board

Administration of Justice—Quasi-judicial tribunal—Irregular procedure—Appeal against appraiser's valuation of wool—Deliberations of appeal tribunal—Appellant excluded but appraiser present—Reduction of tribunal's award—British Wool Marketing Scheme (Approval) Order, 1950 (S. I. 1950, No. 1326), pars. 72 (6) and 91.

A wool producer was dissatisfied with the valuation of his wool by an appraiser appointed under the British Wool Marketing Scheme, 1950. He appealed (as provided in the Scheme) to a valuation appeal tribunal. The tribunal was convened and its members examined the wool in the presence of the original appraiser, an additional appraiser, a representative of the producer, and the regional officer of the marketing board. The tribunal then retired to consider its decision. The two appraisers and the regional officer retired with the tribunal and were present during its deliberations, although they did not take part in them. The representative of the producer was excluded. The tribunal decided to reduce the valuation of the wool to a lower figure than that given by the appraiser.

In an action for reduction of the tribunal's decision,—

Held (rev. judgment of Lord Strachan) that the tribunal was a quasi-judicial body which was bound to act judicially, and that, as the marketing board were, in effect, respondents in the appeal, the tribunal had contravened the principles of natural justice by deliberating on its decision in the presence of the board's appraisers and regional officer while excluding the producer's representative; and the decision reduced.

Per the Lord President:—"It is not a question whether the tribunal has arrived at a fair result…The question is whether the tribunal has dealt fairly and equally with the parties before it in arriving at that result."

Henry Rupert Hood Barrs brought an action against the British Wool Marketing Board and against each of the five members of a valuation appeal tribunal appointed by the Board under the British Wool Marketing Scheme, 1950, concluding for reduction of a decision of the tribunal finally determining the value of a consignment of his wool.

The following summary of the facts is taken from the opinion of the Lord Ordinary (Strachan):—"The pursuer carries on business as a sheep farmer on the Island of Mull, and is a registered producer of wool under the British Wool Marketing Scheme (Approval) Order, 1950. In this action he seeks to set aside a decision of the valuation appeal tribunal set up under section 91 of that Order for the Scottish Southern Region. On 19th March 1954 the tribunal fixed the price to be paid to the pursuer in respect of two lots of wool produced by him. The pursuer maintains that that decision should be reduced on the ground that it was reached in circumstances contrary to natural justice. The conclusion of the summons is “for reduction of the document or documents recording and embodying” the decision. It is agreed by parties that the document in question is the letter which is No. 55 of process, dated 24th March 1954, by which the chairman of the tribunal intimated the decision to the pursuer.

"There is very little dispute in regard to the material facts of the case. These may be briefly summarised as follows. In virtue of the British Wool Marketing Scheme, the pursuer was required to sell his wool through the agency of the Board, and he had to comply with directions given by the Board in terms of the Scheme. Under section 72 of the Scheme the Board, inter alia, publish at the beginning of each year a schedule of maximum prices at which wool of each class specified in the schedule will be valued. After wool has been tendered by a producer or accepted for sale by the Board, it has to be valued by the Board, regard being had to the prescribed maximum prices and to the class, quality and condition of the wool. The result of the valuation is notified to the producer, and the valuation is conclusive as to the value of the wool unless within ten days the producer gives notice of appeal. If an appeal is taken, the matter is referred to a valuation appeal tribunal constituted in accordance with the provisions of section 91 of the Scheme.

"The wool which forms the subject-matter of this case was, under direction of the Board, consigned by the pursuer to Messrs Peter Gatherer & Son, wool merchants, Greenock. It was there valued by an appraiser employed by the Board, who fixed its price at 53¾d. per lb., which was 3d. per lb. below the prescribed maximum price. The pursuer was dissatisfied with that valuation, and after some correspondence the matter was referred to an appeal tribunal for the area in which Greenock was situated. That tribunal consisted of five members, viz., a chairman taken from a panel of persons nominated by the Board, two representatives of producers taken from a panel nominated by the National Farmers' Union and two representatives taken from a panel chosen to represent the views of wool merchants. The tribunal assembled at Messrs Gatherer's premises on 19th March 1954. The pursuer was represented by his manager, Mr Archibald M'Sporran. There were present also (a) Mr Wilson, representing Messrs Gatherer, (b) two appraisers employed by the Board, and (c) Mr Leslie M'Cullough, who was the regional officer of the Board for the Scottish Southern Region. The chairman was Mr Hugh C. Falconer, and at the outset of the proceedings he explained the procedure which the tribunal proposed to follow and he explained that the valuation by the tribunal would be final. Mr M'Sporran then requested, and was granted, an opportunity of telephoning the pursuer, who was then in Mull. Thereafter Mr M'Sporran agreed to proceed with the appeal, and, either on his return from the telephone call or before it, he stated the pursuer's case. The tribunal then proceeded to the store where the wool was lying in bales, and the wool was examined. Every bale was opened and I am quite satisfied that an adequate examination of the wool was carried out. No suggestion to the contrary has been made. The tribunal then returned to a room in the office of Messrs Gatherer, where they proceeded to consider what their decision was to be. On returning to the office at that time the chairman told Mr M'Sporran and Mr Wilson that they were not to be present during the tribunal's deliberations. They therefore waited in a separate room, and after about half an hour they were summoned before the tribunal again to hear the decision announced. On entering the tribunal's room at that stage Mr M'Sporran noticed with some surprise that, although he and Mr Wilson had been excluded from the room during the deliberations, the two appraisers and Mr M'Cullough had not been excluded. In fact the two appraisers and Mr M'Cullough had been present throughout the deliberations.

"The decision of the tribunal was that the value of the wool should be fixed at 52¾d. per lb., i.e., 4d. per lb. below the maximum price, being ld. per lb. lower than the value against which the appeal was taken. The reasons for the valuation are set forth in No. 55 of process, to which I refer."

The pursuer pleaded:—"The said tribunal's decision having been reached in circumstances contrary to natural justice as condescended on, decree should be granted as concluded for."

At advising on 18th January 1957,—

LORD PRESIDENT (Clyde).—The pursuer in this case has brought an action for the reduction of a decision given on 19th March 1954 by a valuation appeal tribunal appointed under the British Wool Marketing Scheme (Approval) Order, 1950.3 The Lord Ordinary after a proof has assoilzied the defenders, and, against his interlocutor so doing, the pursuer has presented a reclaiming motion.

The pursuer is a sheep farmer and a registered producer of wool under the British Wool Marketing Scheme, 1950, in terms of which he is required to sell his wool to, or through the agency of, the marketing Board. The price which he gets for his wool is not the price which it obtains in the market, but a figure fixed in terms of provisions in the Scheme, which is designed to figure something in the nature of a guaranteed price for the producer. Under paragraph 72 (4) of the Scheme the Board is required at the beginning of each year to publish a schedule of maximum prices at which wool of each class specified in the schedule will be valued. This price is fixed in the light of the

guaranteed wool price adjusted under statutory powers by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Paragraph 72 (5) provides that "as soon as practicable after any wool has been duly tendered by any registered producer or accepted for or by way of sale by the Board during the year the Board shall cause it to be valued having regard to the prescribed schedule of maximum prices and to the class or classes and the quality and condition of the wool and thereupon the Board shall notify the registered producer of the result of such valuation." In practice this valuation involves fixing the appropriate deduction from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Inland Revenue v Barrs
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session (Inner House - First Division)
    • 22 mars 1960
    ...and 20 Vict. cap. 56. 18 Reference was made to Clerk and Scrope's Court of Exchequer Forms. 19 Barrs v. British Wool Marketing BoardSC, 1957 S. C. 72, Lord President Clyde at p. 81, Lord Sorn at p. 86. 20 Reference was made to Ledingham v. ElphinstoneUNK,(1859) 22 D. 245. 21 Income Tax Act,......
  • Elizabeth Byrne V. Mental Health Tribunal For Scotland
    • United Kingdom
    • Sheriff Court
    • 21 février 2006
    ...that the Tribunal must act in accordance with natural justice. She made reference to the case of Barrs v British Wool Marketing Board 1957 SC 72, Tait v Central Radio Taxis 1989 SL T 217, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1993 3 WLR 154 and Ritchie v Secretary of State for Scot......
  • Tote Bookmakers Limited V. Dundee Cuty Licensing Board+ladbrokes Limited
    • United Kingdom
    • Sheriff Court
    • 21 février 2006
    ...Schedule I 2. Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1976, esp sections 18, 39 and 133 Authorities referred to: 1. Barrs v British Wool Marketing Board 1957 SC 72 2. Bradford v McLeod 1986 SLT 244 3. Feld v London Borough of Barnet [2004] EWCA Civ. 1307 4. Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited [2003] UKHL 35 ......
  • Elizabeth Byrne V. Mental Health Tribunal For Scotland
    • United Kingdom
    • Sheriff Court
    • 13 février 2006
    ...that the Tribunal must act in accordance with natural justice. She made reference to the case of Barrs v British Wool Marketing Board 1957 SC 72, Tait v Central Radio Taxis 1989 SL T 217, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1993 3 WLR 154 and Ritchie v Secretary of State for Scot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC LAW: CHALLENGING THE PRECONCEPTIONS OF A TROUBLED TAXONOMY.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 41 No. 2, December 2017
    • 1 décembre 2017
    ...followed a line of authority on procedural fairness which applied similarly to contractual arbiters: Barrs v British Wool Marketing Board 1957 SC 72, 82. See Thomson, "The Doctrinal Core of the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the Court of Session' (n 10) (97) As an example of judicial review of......
  • Cases reported in 1988 Part II
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1988. Part II Nigerian Supreme Court Cases 1988 Part II Preliminary Sections
    • 27 novembre 2022
    ...(1870) L.R. 5 C.B. 549 570. 296 Barclays Bank v. Central Bank (1976) 6 S.C. 175 at 188 430 Barrs v. British Wool Marketing Board (1957) S.C. 72 at 82. 331 Baumwoll Manufacture Von Carl Scheiller v. Furness (H.L.) (1893) A.C. 8. 41 Belfast Corporation v. O.D. Cars Ltd. (1960) A.C. 490. 444 B......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT