General Nursing Council for England and Wales v St. Marylebone B. C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1957 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1957] EWCA Civ J1126-1 |
| Date | 26 November 1957 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1957] EWCA Civ J1126-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Romer: And
Lord Justice Ormerod.
In the Matter of the Rating And Valuation (Miscelleneous Provisions) Act. 1955.
MR. GEofFREY CROSS, Q.C., and MR. J. L. ARNOLD, instructed by Messrs. Sharpe, Pritchard & Co., appeared for the Appellants (Defendants)".
MR, G. D, SQUIBB, Q.C., and W. L. ROOTS, instructed by Messrs. Pontifex Pitt & Co., appeared for the Respondents (Plaintiffs;
: The judgment which I an about to road If the Judgment of the Court.
In this case (which, like the immediately preceding case, arises upon an application by originating summons to the Charcery Division of the High Court) the General Nursing Council for England and Wales seeks and has obtained a declaration that it is an organisation such as is mentioned in section 8(l)(e) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellneous Provisions) Act, 1955, and is accordingly entitled to the benefit of that section in respect of the hereditament occupied by it for the purposes of its statutory functions at Nos. 23 to 25, Portland Place in London. In this case, as in the last, it in not in doubt that the Council is en organisation not established or conducted for profit. But, having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of the. General Medical Council v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (reported in 13 Tax Cases, page 819) and to the decision of the Scottish Court of Session in the General Nursing Council for Scotland v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (reported in 14 Tax Cases, para 645), it has not been contended before us that the Council can be regarded (at any rate in this Court) as an organisation whose main objects are charitable, or as an organisation whose main objects are otherwise concerned with the advancement of education. The sole question is whether the Council is, – within the meaning of the section, an organisation whose main objects, not being charitable are "concerned with the advancement of social welfare". Mr. Justice Danckwerts care to the conclusion that it was. The Council, he said,"… was not established, as it scene to me, for the purpose of raising the professional status of the nurses, but for the purpose of creating a system of registration so as to prevent incompetent nurses being able to victimize the public, end for making sure that the public should receive the services only of competent nurses. That seems to me to be the establishment of a body for benefiting the public, and, therefore, as it seems to me, of social welfare."
Though the Council was first established by an Act of Parliament of the year 1919, it was agreed before us, as before Mr. Justice Danckwerts, that the Nurses Act, 1957, (which, inter alia, repealed and re-enacted the earlier statute) could be taken as accurately specifying and containing the purposes end functions laid by parliament upon the Council. . From this source, therefore, rust be discovered (with the guidance to be obtained from the two eases already mentioned of the General Medical Council and the General Nursing Council for Scotland) the answer to the first essential question, What are the "main objects" of the Council? Mr. Justice Danckwerts has summarised in his judgment all the provisions of the 1957 Act, and we do not need to repeat them in detail. It is, in our Judgment, sufficient and sufficiently accurate to state that the purposes and functions of the Council were and are to maintain a register of nurses, together with a roll of assistant nurses; to regulate accordingly the conditions of admission to and removal from the register and the roll, and, in. connection therewith, to exercise supervisory and directing powers in regard to training and examinations; and to exercise such other powers end duties as are ancillary to and consequent upon. the foregoing. The income of the Council appears to be in part derived from fees which the Council are authorized to charge upon applications for examination end registration or enrolment and the like, end as to the rest from moneys directly or indirectly provided by Parliament. Cur attention was not, during the argument, directed to any figures showing the actual income or expenditure in any year of the Council, from which re assure that such figures do not assist towards a solution of the problem, before the Court. It should be added that, by the terms of the Act, only those persons whose names upon the Council's register are entitled to call themselves "nurses" or to wear the appropriate and. distinctive uniform of nurses.
In the first of the above two cases it was, of course, necessary for the General medical Council, in order to succeed, to show that it was established "for charitable purposes only"; and that (in the view of this Court) in spite of the educational and benevolent character of many of its purposes, it could not succeed in doing. The judgment of the master of the Rolls, Lord hanworth, was, we think, less positive in this respect, though there is no doubt that both Lord Justice Sargent and Lord Justice Lawrence were clearly of opinion that the real source and purpose of the relevant legislation "is to regulate the profession of medical men, who, in consequence, have certain privileges conferred upon the:.1, by the legislation, and that it is in the first instance as a professional measure that the legislation is to be regarded" (See page 349 of the report). Thus, in the view of the majority (at any rate) of the Court, the public benefit and advantage which unquestionably resulted from. the regulation of the medical profession should be regarded as of secondary significance. when. the case of the General Nursing Council for Scotland cane before the Court of Session, there is no doubt that the learned judges were more sympathetic to that body than had been the English Court of Appeal to the General Medical Council; and it was and is a point of distinction between the medical Council, on the one hand, and the two Nursing Councils on the other that in the former case material benefits are conferred by registration exceeding anything to be found in the cases of the Nursing Councils – particularly the provision that only registered doctors can sue for and recover their fees. Nevertheless the Inner House concluded in the end that the case before there. could not be satisfactorily distinguished from that of the General Medical Council. In the course of his leading judgment, Lord Sands said (at para 651): "The sole purpose of the Council is to for. and maintain a register for
qualified nurses, and their chief work is dealing with applications for admission to the register". Then, after considering the nature of this "chief work", Lord sands concluded that, if it constituted the entire scope of the Council's operations, it would be educational and therefore charitable. "Has the Council any other purposes? I take it that it is regarded as being in the interest of the sick… that there should be in this country a body of nurses of undoubted efficiency and of full and adequate training as attested by a responsible body. The system is designed to protect the public and to raise the standard of nursing generally in the interests of the community, and in particular of the sick."
The learned judge then proceeded to consider whether there was still some other purpose which had the result of disabling the Council from making good its claim to establishment for charitable purposes only, and in the passage which is recited and relied upon by Mr. Justice Danckwerts, but which we do not here repeat, Lord Sands concluded that the professional cashet which registration confers upon the nurses ought not, in his view, to have the effect of requiring the Act to be interpreted as one designed in the professional interest of the nurses and not as one established rather in the general public interest. Nevertheless, in the end of all, Lord Sands found it impossible – whatever night have been his view had the question been entirely novel- to distinguish the case from that of the General Medical Council. "No doubt in that case the professional benefits are greater and of a somewhat different quality, but I do not think that this can affect the natter so long as the professional benefits, as in the present case, are not intangible." (See page 653 of the report).
To the sane effect were the judgments of Lord Blackburn and Lord Morison; and, though Lord President Clyde would clearly for his own part have distinguished the case from that of the General Medical Council, in the end he did not dissent from his brethren.
We add one citation from Lord Morison at page 659 of the report: "In ray view, the reasoning in these decisions" (that is, the General Medical Council case and one other) "applies to the present case. The Statute here is not described as an Act for the education of nurses In establishing the register the purpose of the Statute is to secure that the vocation of nurse shall be regulated. It enables nurses to obtain a definite qualification if their abilities and training equip them sufficiently to attain a definite standard."
It is not perhaps entirely easy to say how far the learned judges of the Court of Session intended to go in finally deciding, as they did, that the Nursing Council case could not be distinguished from that of the General Medical Council. In view of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helena Housing Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...of social welfare is in itself charitable. 69 The case reached the House of Lords and is reported as General Nursing Council for England and Wales v St Marylebone Borough Council [1959] AC 540. The GNC sought relief from rates under a provision extending to organisations not conducted for p......
-
National Deposit Friendly Society Trustees v Skegness Urban DC
...of devotion to good works, as suggested by Lord Evershed, M.R., in The General Nursing Council v. Sr. Marylebone Borough Council, [1957], 3 W.L.R. 1039 at 1048, of some propagation or encouragement of social welfare from the outside on altruistic grounds, or motivated by Good Samaritan 24I......
-
Phonographic Performance Ltd v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council
...counsel were not able to support this view of the learned Judge. I would accept the words of the Master of the Rolls where he says, (1958) Chancery 421, 434: 'It is not enough that the objects of the organization are in some degree related to the advancement of social welfare, they must in ......
-
Odyssey v Commissioner of Valuation
...needs arise, the issues that arise can be difficult. In General Nursing Council for England and Wales v St Marylebone Borough Council [1958] Ch 421 Lord Evershed MR said: “In such a case, as Lord Radcliffe observed in a wholly different context, the law cannot be set at rest by any neat com......