Bennett v Chappell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,LORD JUSTICE WINN |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Civ J0616-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 16 June 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Civ J0616-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr Justice Buckley
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Russell and
Lord Justice Winn
THE APPELLANT appeared in person.
MR. JOHN BRADBURN (instructed by Messrs Theodore Goddard & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
Blackbushe Airport is built on Yateley Common. It was requisitioned for military purposes during the war and then from 1946 to 1960 it was used for civil aircraft. In 1960 the Ministry of Civil Aviation gave it up and the land reverted to its previous owners, who were the Calthorpe Estates and the Yateley Parish Council. In 1961 Air Vice-Marshal Bennett bought some 350 acres from the Calthorpe Estates. He wished also to buy or lease some 70 acres from the Yateley Parish Council, or to acquire it in exchange for other land. The reason was because these 70 acres included the eastern end of the runway. The Yateley Parish Council were unwilling to entertain his proposal for these 70 acres. So the Air Vice-Marshal set about, with success, to establish a civil airport on the rem aining 350 acres which he has, but still he is anxious to have the extra 70 acres if he can get it from the Yateley Parish Council.
In May of 1963 the Yateley Parish Council, instead of transferring the land to Air Vice-Marshal Bennett, put forward a proposal that it should be transferred to the Hampshire County Council. The proposal was that a large area of 513 acres of Yateley. Common (which included these 70 acres) should be transferred to the Hampshire County Council to be kept in perpetuity as a public open space. The Parish Council had power to transfer such land free of any payment, provided that they got the consent of the Parish Meeting. They gave public notice calling a Parish Meeting to consider the question of "the transfer of that part of Yateley Common in the ownership of the Yateley Parish Council to the Hampshire County Council". The meeting was held on the 28th May 1963. The business concerned the whole 513 acres but much the greater part of the discussion concerned the particular proposition which the Air Vice-Marshal put forward himself, namely, his proposal that he should buy, or take on lease, or acquire in exchange, the 70 acres which he needed for the runway of the airport. These 70 acres were discussed atlength. It was a noisy meeting. Eventually the Chairman of the meeting (who was the Chairman of the Parish Council) put to the meeting the question whether or no they consented to the 513 acres being transferred to the Hampshire County Council. By a show of hands there was a very large majority in favour of the 513 acres being transferred to the County Council. Thereupon the Air Vice-Marshal demanded a poll. As you might expect of a military man, he had considered his plan of campaign beforehand, and he demanded a poll.
Now a poll at a Parish Meeting is not like a poll at a Company Meeting. The poll at a Company Meeting is a poll of those actually present in person or by proxy. The poll which can be demanded at a Parish Meeting is a poll of the whole electorate in the Parish and not merely those present at the meeting. The Air Vice-Marshal demanded a poll, as the Judge finds, upon the question whether the eastern land (that is, the 70 acres) should be leased to him or exchanged for other land. The Chairman asked those present who supported the Air Vice-Marshal in demanding a poll to indicate by raising their hands. 15 or more hands were raised. Five people present gave their names to the Clerk as supporting the demand for a poll. Thereupon there was a right, according to the section of the Act, to a poll. The Chairman thought that the poll was on the question originally put to the meeting, whether the whole 513 acres should be transferred to the Hampshire County Council. But the Judge has found (and it cannot be questioned) that the Air Vice-Marshal was demanding a poll on the narrower question whether the eastern part (that is, the 70 acres) should be leased to him or exchanged for other land.
After the poll had been demanded, the Clerk to the Council issued a notice convening a poll. It was convened on the question whether the whole 513 acres should go to the Hampshire County Council and not merely on the question whether a portion should be leased to the Air Vice-Marshal. On the poll beingtaken, 949 were in favour of the 513 acres going to the Hampshire County Council and 422 against. So by a majority of 527 the poll approved the transfer of the whole 513 acres to the Hampshire County Council.
The Air Vice-Marshal says that procedure was quite wrong. The poll was not taken on the right question. He was entitled to have a poll on the question which he put, namely, whether or not the eastern portion (the 70 acres) should be leased to him or exchanged with him. In support of his demand he refers to the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act 1933 which sets out the procedure which is to be adopted at a Parish Meeting. He refers particularly to paragraph 5(4) of that schedule which says: "A poll may be demanded, before the conclusion of a Parish Meeting, on any question arising thereat". The Air Vice-Marshal says that the question about the eastern end coming to him was a question which arose at the meeting. It had been much discussed at the meeting. Therefore, as a matter of ordinary English language he was entitled to a poll on it.
The answer on behalf of the Parish Council is that "question arising" there means a question arising for decision at the meeting, and that a question only arises for decision within that section if it is a question which has been put to a meeting by a resolution or by an amendment to a resolution. The Parish Council say that is the only way in which a question can be said to arise. In support of that contention they refer to sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5, which says: "A question to be decided by a parish meeting shall, in the first instance, be decided by the majority of those present at the meeting and voting thereon, and the decision of the person presiding at the meeting as to the result of the voting shall be final unless a poll is demanded thereon". It is said that "question" in sub-paragraph (4) refers to the self-same sort of questions as in sub-paragraph (2).
We have looked at the earlier Act, the Local Government Act 1894, First Schedule, which contained the rules applicable to Parish Meetings. It is quite plain that a poll there applied only after a resolution had been put to the meeting. So here under the 1933 Act I think that in sub-paragraph (4) "any question arising thereat" means any question arising for decision thereat. A decision can only be taken, as it seems to me, by the Parish Meeting either by a resolution being put to the meeting and voted upon; or by an amendment to it being put to the meeting and voted upon. I think that Air Vice-Marshal Bennett ought to have put an amendment before the meeting. He ought to have asked the Chairman to accept an amendment that the 70 acres should be leased or exchanged with him. That is the only way in which, his question could properly arise for decision. Unfortunately, he did not put any amendment to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairfield Sentry Ltd ((in Liquidation)) & Krys v Citco Bank Nederland NV and Others
...circumstances: Attorney General v. Scott [1905] 2 K.B. 160. Nor where a declaration will be of no practical value; Bennett v. Chappell [1966] Ch. 391." 98 98. To determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declarations sought that Citco holds the monies in the Dublin Account to the......
-
Roodal v State of Trinidad and Tobago
...changed an important legal rule by a sidewind. See, for instance, Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (4th edition, 2002), pp 693–694 and Bennett v Chappell [1966] Ch 391. As the Court of Appeal observed, that approach is equally applicable in the present case. 41 As supposed grounds for que......
-
Maguire v South Eastern Health Board
...and in different circumstances: A.G.-v-Scott (1905) 2KB 160. Nor where a declaration will be of no practical value: Bennet-v-Chappell (1965) 3 All E.R 130. In Gibson-v-The Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers (1968) 2 All E.R 252 Buckley J. said- " I have been referred to a number ......
-
R. v. Roodal (B.), [2003] N.R. Uned. 300
...legal rule by a sidewind. See, for instance, Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (4th edition, 2002), pp. 693-694 and Bennett v. Chappell [1966] Ch 391. As the Court of Appeal observed, that approach is equally applicable in the present case. [41] As supposed grounds for questioning the view ......
-
Part 141. Volunteer Workers [Details]
...authority: L. 1966, ch. 391...