Institute of Fuel v Morley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE JENKINS |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J1215-1 |
| Date | 15 December 1954 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1954] EWCA Civ J1215-1
In the Supreme Court of Judicature,
Court of Appeal.
The Master of the Rolls,
(Sir Raymond Evershed)
Lord Justice Jenkins, and
Lord Justice Birkett.
Re Local Government Act, 1943.
Counsel for the Appellants: MR MICHAEL ROWE, Q. C., and MR F.A. AMIES, instructed by Messrs Philip Conway, Thomas & Co.
Counsel for the Respondents: MR A.L. LYALL. Q. C., and MR HAROLD BROWN, Instructed by Messrs Sharpe Pritchard & Co.
The Institute of Fuel is a body corporate incorporated by Royal Charter in the year 1946. It occupies certain offices and other premises at 18, Devonshire Street in the City of Westminster, and claims in the present proceedings to be entitled to exemption from rates as being a body "instituted for purposes of science … exclusively" within the meaning of Section 1 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843. This claim was rejected both by the Local Valuation Court for North West London and by the Lands Tribunal. From the decision of the Tribunal the Institute now appeals to this Court.
The scientific purpose for which alone, according to its case, the Institute of Fuel was "instituted" was that of the promotion of Fuel Technology. The exact character and scope of Fuel Technology were not explained to us; but from the terms of the Royal Charter, it is clearly concerned with the efficient and economical use of fuel of various kinds, and it is not in dispute that Fuel Technology is an "applied science", and, therefore, "science" within the scope of the Act of 1843. The sole question which was debated before the Lands Tribunal and which has been debated before us is whether the Institute of Fuel was instituted exclusively for the advancement or promotion of that science.
The question must, in my judgment, depend upon an ascertainment, according to the true interpretation of the Charter, of the purposes of the Institute. So much appears to me to have been laid down by this Court in the case of Metropolitan Borough of Battersen v. British Iron and Steel Research Association, which is reported in 1949 1 King's Bench Division at page 434. My brother Jenkins, in the course of his judgment in that case, formulated the principles to be applied in answering thequestion posed in this case as well as in that. At page 451 of the report he said: "The question whether a particular Society is' instituted for purposes of science, literature or fine arts exclusively' within the meaning of the section must be determined by reference to the purposes of the Society as defined by its constitution, rather than the purposes it may actually have pursued in practice." And then, after observing that a Society might forfeit its privilege under the Act of 1843 by pursuing an activity outside the terms of Section 1, even though it was unauthorised, the learned Judge continued; "But in general I think a claim to exemption must stand or fall by reference simply to the Society's authorised purposes, the circumstance that an authorised purpose has never in fact been pursued being irrelevant."
It becomes, accordingly, necessary to refer to the Charter of the Institute. Paragraph 7 states the purposes of the Institute, and is as follows; "The objects and purposes for which the Institute of Fuel is hereby constituted are:- (a) To promote, foster, and develop the general advancement of the various branches of Fuel Technology as an end in itself, and as a means of furthering the more scientific and economic utilisation of fuel of all kinds for industrial, commercial, public, agricultural, domestic transport and/or other purposes, and to promote, assist, finance and support such industrial and scientific research, investigation, and experimental work in the economical treatment, and application of fuel as the Institute may consider likely to conduce to those ends, and to the benefit of the community at large, (b) To hold meetings in London and at established provincial centres for the reading and discussion of papers, to issue regularly a technical journal, to join with other Institutions inpromoting objects of mutual interest, and generally to take such a prominent and active part in the advancement of the knowledge and practice of fuel technology as its status requires. (c) To co-operate with Government Departments, Universities, Educational Institutions, associations, companies, or individual persons in establishing or maintaining any investigation or research relating to any branch of Fuel Technology, (d) To uphold the status of members of the Institute by holding or prescribing examinations for candidates for election and by requiring standards of knowledge and experience which can be approved. (e) To print and publish, sell, lend and distribute any communiontions made to the Institute or any similar society, and any reports of the proceedings or transactions of the Institute or any similar society, and to produce, purchase, reproduce, print, publish and distribute any other books, papers, treatises or communications relating to fuel technology and to establish and maintain a library, (f) To invite foreign delegates to attend any meetings, conferences or functions promoted or supported by the Institute and to defray or contribute to their expenses; to defray or contribute to the expenses of any duly appointed officials or representatives of the Institute attending any foreign scientific meetings or conferences at the request of the Council of the Institute, and to translate, print, publish and distribute any books, communications, papers or proceedings or abstracts or extracts thereof which are of scientific interest. (g) To provide facilities for Conferences and Functions in support of the objects of the Institute, (h) To do all other things incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects or any of them."
It is to be observed that, according to the terms of the paragraph, no one of the sub-paragraphs (a)to (g) inclusive is expressed to have any primacy over the others. The final sub-paragraph (h), on the other hand, covers activities "incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects or any of them." Though, no doubt, the object or purpose stated in the first sub-paragraph (a) would, upon a natural reading of the language, be expected to relate to the most significant of the Institute's objects or purposes, it does not seem to me legitimate, as a matter of construction, to regard the contents of subparagraphs (b) to (g) inclusive as not being objects or purposes at all; as constituting merely incidents of the first-named object, means towards its achievement or consequences flowing from its pursuit; unless these other objects and purposes are by their nature of such a character as to be substantially incapable of being otherwise effected. If this is a correct approach to the problem, then, in my judgment, the question will be found to turn on the arguments submitted to us upon the meaning and effect in the general context of the Charter of sub-paragraph (d). Does that sub-paragraph mean and have the effect that the furtherance of the interests of Members of the Institute, as professional men practising Fuel Technology, is an object or purpose of the Institute distinct and collateral, even though relatively subsidiary, to the most important object or purpose specified in the first sub-paragraph? If so, then, in my judgment, according to the principles above mentioned, the Institute fails to qualify for the exemption claimed. The Valuation Court and the Lands Tribunal, so determined, and I am for my part not persuaded that they were wrong.
In formulating the question as I have done, I have reflected the language used in judgments and Speeches in other and similar cases, particularly in the two cases Institution of Civil Engineers v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which is reported in 1932 1 King's Bench Division at page 149and Royal College of Surgeons of England v. National Provincial Bank. Ltd., reported in 1952 Appeal Cases at pages 631 In the former of those cases the question was of exemption from Income Tax, and in the latter the question was whether the Appellant College was a "Charity" within the scope of the Preamble to the Statute of the First Elizabeth. The purposes or objects of both bodies – the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal College of Surgeons – have more than once been under consideration in the Courts. As a result of the two cases cited it may, in my judgment, now be taken as established that each body (and, in the case of the Institution of Civil Engineers, notwithstanding the earlier decision of Regina Institution of Civil Engineers, reported in 5 Queen's Bench Division at page 48) should be treated as instituted for purposes of science exclusively within the meaning of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843. Mr Rowe, for the Appellants, in the present case contended that the Institute of Fuel should be no less privileged. But, in my judgment, the facts relating to the Institute of Fuel are in certain essential respects different from the facts relating to the Institution of Civil Engineers and to the Royal College of Surgeons.
Before I expand that statement I make some references to the judgments in this Court in the Civil Engineers case. The passages which I desire to quote were made in reference to the question whether the Institution of Civil Engineers was "established for charitable purposes only"; but they are, in my view, equally applicable (mutatis mutandis) to the question with which in this case we are concerned.
Lord Hanworth, at page 161 of the report, said:"As Mr Justice Rowlatt has said, there may be a charitable institution for the relief of sickness, and incidental advantages can be gained by a subscriber to the funds,...
To continue reading
Request your trial