Hanson v Church Commissioners for England
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ROSKILL,LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Civ J1101-1 |
| Docket Number | 1976 No. 184 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 01 November 1976 |
[1976] EWCA Civ J1101-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
Divisional Court
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Roskill and
Lord Justice Lawton
THE APPLICANT (APPELLANT) appeared in person (Solicitors: Messrs. Lorenz & Jones, London)
MR. R. MOSHI (instructed by Messrs. Radcliffes & Co., Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
MR. H. WOOLF and MR. G. MANSFIELD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.
There is a house in Chelsea which is owned by the Church Commissioners. It is 21 Bramerton Street. It has been let to Mr. John Hanson for the last ten years. In 1973 the rent was £600 a year. The landlords applied to the rent officer for the registration of a rent of £900 as being a fair rent for the house. The tenant made representations to the rent officer that £900 was too high. The tenant said that the existing rent of £600 was fair. In consequence, early in 1974, in accordance with the Rent Act, 1968, Schedule 6, paragraph 4, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), a consultation was held at the house. The rent officer attended together with the landlords, representative (who was Mr. Lowndes of Cluttons). The tenant Mr. John Hanson was there in person. The rent officer said that he thought a fair rent would be £800 a year. The landlords' agents said that they would accept it. But the tenant did not agree. He thought £800 was too high. The rent officer however kept to his figure. On the 18th March, 1974 he determined a fair rent of £800 a year and notified both parties.
The landlords did not give any notice of objection, but the tenant did. On the 10th March, 1974 he objected. Thereupon it became a duty of the rent officer to refer the matter to a rent assessment committee, and he did so. On the 23rd April, 1974 the rent assessment panel wrote to the tenant asking him if he wanted a hearing. On the 17th May, 1974 he replied saying that he would like to be assisted under the surveyor's aid scheme. He added that he would like to appear before a committee. He further said that the rent officer's report was fair. On the 9th July, 1974 the rent assessment committee gave notice to both sides that the objection would be heard on Thursday, 15th August, 1974.
By this time in July the tenant had got the aid of surveyors, the well known firm of Debenham, Tewson & Chinnocks.The gentleman dealing with it for the tenant was a Mr. Newsom. These surveyors advised the tenant that he was unlikely to succeed in his objection to the £800 and they could not find themselves in a position to present a case on his behalf at the hearing.
The tenant was not very happy with this advice. He still thought £800 was too high, but he accepted the advice and told his surveyors that he did not wish to take his objection any further. This was on the 8th August. There was then only a week to go before the hearing on the 15th August. Thereupon Mr. Newsom of the tenant's surveyors telephoned to the clerk of the rent assessment committee. The evidence is somewhat conflicting but, as I read it, fir. Newsom asked whether the tenant could withdraw his objection at a date so close to the hearing. The clerk said that it was in order for the tenant to withdraw and that a letter should be sent confirming the withdrawal. He suggested a form of words which Mr. Newsom used in a letter on that very day. It was as follows: "(8th August, 1974. Dear Sirs, No. 21 Bramerton Street; Objection to Rent Assessment. We write following our telephone conversation of this morning. Acting on behalf of Mr. Hanson of the above address, we confirm that we shall not be placing our objection before the London Rent Assessment Panel on Thursday 15th August W. Newsom".
The landlords were told nothing about that letter. They were not told that the tenant had withdrawn his objection. The clerks of the panel did nothing about it either. They kept the case in the list of cases to be heard on the 15th August, 1974 by the rent assessment committee.
On that day, 15th August, 1974, the committee and the landlords attended. They thought that the case was still effective. But the tenant did not attend, he thought that itwas not effective. When the case was called on, the chairman treated it as a case where the tenant had made no withdrawal of his objection and had simply failed to turn up. According to a note we have, it would appear that the chairman asked Mr. Lowndes of Gluttons, the agents for the landlords: "What do you want to tell us?" Mr. Lowndes acknowledged in effect that (after the consultation with the rent officer and the tenant) he had at that consultation accepted the £800 proposed by the rent officer, but now that he was present at the hearing he would like the committee to increase it to the £900 for which he had applied originally. He said that he had prepared a proof in support of their application for £900 and asked whether the committee would like him to read it. The chairman asked him to give it to them and they would read it for themselves. Mr. Lowndes handed it to them and they read it. No one challenged it because, of course, the tenant was not there.
In the afternoon the committee went to the house. The tenant had gone to work, but his wife was at home. He asked if the committee could inspect the house. The tenant replied: "I understood that my appeal has been withdrawn and the hearing would not proceed. I cannot agree to your inspecting the house in my absence. Would you wait half an hour until I can get home?" The chairman said: "We can't wait any longer as we have other properties to inspect. The hearing has already taken place. This is not a part of the hearing, but purely a visual inspection. We do not listen to further arguments at this stage. The case will have to go on without you. I will have to record that you have refused the committee access for inspection". So the committee only looked at the outside of I the house from the front.
The committee seem then and there to have agreed that a fair rent was £900 a year, but the chairman afterwards on the7th September, 1974 gave a written decision and reasons. In it he expressed the indebtedness of the committee to the evidence of Mr. Lowndes the landlords agent contained in the proof, showing that they were much influenced by it.
Although the chairman signed his decision on the 7th September, 1974, the clerks in the office did not notify the tenant of it until the 18th October, 1974 - I suppose that they were too busy.
On the 15th November, 1974 the tenant in person gave a notice of appeal to the Divisional Court under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act on the ground that the decision was contrary to natural justice.
The solicitors for the Church Commissioners wrote to him on the 14th January, 1975 saying that that proceeding was misconceived and he ought to apply for an order of certiorari.
The tenant thought that this was too difficult for him, and he went to solicitors and sought legal aid. The proceedings took a long time to get started, but that was not due to any fault of the tenant personally. It was not until the 5th June, 1975 that he was granted legal aid. His solicitors quickly instituted proceedings. On the 19th June, 1975 they were settled. On the 25th July, 1975 notice was given to the Divisional Court applying for certiorari to quash. On the 11th November, 1975 the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal under the Act on the ground that there was no error of law discernable in the decision of the committee. The Divisional Court dismissed the application for certiorari on the ground that, on the material before it, it was too late as more than nine months had passed.
I would like to deal with this last point at once. Fresh evidence was adduced before us to show that the tenant had not been guilty of any delay at all, and he had acted properly atevery turn. In these circumstances, application for certiorari was not out of time and we must consider it on its merits.
Both the appeal and the application for certiorari seem to raise the same points, so we need not go into any question of jurisdiction at all.
I would also mention one other small point. The tenant in his notice of motion, which he made in person, said that the Lord Chief Justice was a Church Commissioner and, as a Church Commissioner, he should have notified the parties before he dealt with the matter. A like objection might be made to me. The Church Commissioners are constituted by the Church Commissioners Act, 1947. They include many dignitaries such as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Mayor of London, and others. But those dignitaries have nothing to do with the management or business of the estate of the Church Commissioners. That is all done by a Board ofgovernors, of which they are not members. The dignitaries are merely titular commissioners. So the objection was not well-founded. To be fair to Mr. Hanson, he did not pursue the objection either to the Lord Chief Justice or to me.
I turn to the substantive points. Had the tenant any right to withdraw his objection? Upon this point Mr. Moshi before us has drawn our attention this morning to the textbooks in which it is suggested that he had no right to withdraw. In Mr. Megarry's book "The Rent Acts" Tenth Edition at page 405 it is said: "There is no express provision for either or both of the parties to withdraw a reference to the committee; and it seems doubtful whether they can do so. For the reference is made not by the parties but by the rent officer; and once...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones et Al; Jones v Gray et Al
...proceeded in the absence of the defendants. 79 The facts here are not dissimilar to those in Hanson v. The Commissioners for England [1977] 3 ALL E.R. 404. In that case a genuine mistake was made by a tenant who thought that an objection he had filed to the rates fixed by a Rent Assessment ......
- R v A Rent Assessment Committee for London and Others, ex parte Ellis-Rees and Others
-
R (on the application of O Twelve Baytree Ltd) v Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
...a party to withdraw proceedings. The question of a party's right to withdraw proceeding before a tribunal was considered in Hanson v Church Commissioners for England [1978] 1 Q.B. 823. That case concerned the fixing of rents for properties. A landlord could apply to a rent officer for the f......
- R v Bristol Rent Assessment Committee, ex parte Dunworth