Institution of Mechanical Engineers v Cane
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Viscount Simonds,Lord Reid,Lord Radcliffe,Lord Tucker,Lord Denning |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1960 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1960] UKHL J1122-1 |
| Date | 22 November 1960 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1960] UKHL J1122-1
Viscount Simonds
Lord Reid
Lord Radcliffe
Lord Tucker
Lord Denning
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Institution of Mechanical Engineers against Cane (Valuation Officer) and others, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 17th, as on Tuesday the 18th, Wednesday and the 19th and Thursday the 20th, days of October last, others, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers of 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London, S.W.1, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 1st of December 1959, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Thomas Stanley Cane, the Valuation Officer for the City of Westminster, and the Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors of the City of Westminster, the Rating Authority for the City, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 1st day of December 1959, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
The question raised in this appeal is whether the Appellants, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, whom I will call "the Institution", are entitled in respect of their occupation of certain premises at 1 Birdcage Walk and 5 Storey's Gate in the City of Westminster to exemption from rating under section 1 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843. The Lands Tribunal, reversing a decision of the Local Valuation Court, held that they were so entitled, but upon case stated the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Valuation Officer and the Corporation of the City of Westminster and restored the assessment to the Valuation List. From the decision of the Court of Appeal which thus denied exemption the Institution appeals to this House. I entertain no doubt that the appeal must be dismissed but it is not easy to formulate the grounds of dismissal without using language that may be applied to circumstances which I have not in mind and do not intend, at least without further consideration, to cover.
I will first set out the relevant section. It is as follows: —
"[1]. No person or persons shall be assessed or rated, or liable to be assessed or rated, or liable to pay, to any county, borough, parochial, or other local rates or cesses, in respect of any land, houses, or buildings, or parts of houses, or buildings, belonging to any society instituted for purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts exclusively, either as tenant or as owner, and occupied by it for the transaction of its business, and for carrying into effect its purposes, provided that such society shall be supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions, and shall not, and by its laws may not, make any dividend, gift, division, or bonus in money unto or between any of its members, and provided also that such society shall obtain the certificate of the barrister-at-law or lord advocate, as hereinafter mentioned."
Upon this section two questions arise, ( a) whether the Institution was instituted for purposes of science, literature or the fine arts exclusively, and ( b) whether, if it was so instituted, it is supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions. If both these questions were answered in the affirmative, it would be necessary to consider also a third question, whether the premises are in fact occupied by the Institution for the transaction of its business and the carrying into effect of its purposes. It is not, however, necessary to decide this question and I abstain from doing so, for I am not satisfied that it has been fully considered in all its aspects.
Upon the first question, which can be reduced to asking whether the Institution was instituted for purposes of science exclusively, it is the Charter that must be looked at first and last. I see no reason to suppose that it is necessary or legitimate to look at subsequent conduct in order to construe its language. That language is plain enough and I decline to apply the rule of contemporanea expositio to a Royal Charter of the year 1930.
In the Charter the objects and purposes of the Institution are thus stated:
"7. The objects and purposes for which the Institution is hereby constituted are to promote the development of Mechanical Engineering and to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas thereon and for that purpose:
(A) To encourage invention and research in matters connected with Mechanical Engineering and with this object to make grants of money or books or otherwise to assist such invention and research.
(B) To hold meetings of the Institution for reading and discussing communications bearing upon Mechanical Engineering or the application thereof or upon subjects relating thereto.
(C) To print publish and distribute the proceedings or reports of the Institution or any papers communications works or treatises on Mechanical Engineering or its application or subjects connected therewith.
(D) To co-operate with Universities, other Educational Institutions and public Educational Authorities for the furtherance of education in Engineering Science or Practice.
(E) To do all other things incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects or any of them."
The Charter also provided for the government of the Institution and for membership of it. There were to be two classes, namely, members and associate members, to be known collectively as corporate members, and there were to be also honorary members, companions, associates, graduates and students, to be known collectively as non-corporate members. Members were to be entitled to the use after their name of the initials "M.I. Mech. E.", associate members of "A.M.I. Mech. E.", and so on through the grades.
I need refer to nothing else in the Charter except to say that the corporate members were empowered to make bye-laws for the regulation, government and advantage of the Institution, its members and purport, and for the furtherance of its objects and purposes as therein mentioned.
I ask, then, at once whether this Institution was instituted exclusively for purposes of science. It must first be noted that nothing could have been easier than to say so, but the vital word was not said: an omission the more noteworthy when it is observed that in comparable institutions which have been before the courts, prominence has been given to the word. In the whole of clause 7 of the Charter which I have set out the word "science" occurs once only, and then in the phrase "education in engineering science" and practice", where the collocation of "science" and "practice" indicates their distinction and the dual character of the education to be given. So far as "mechanical engineering" connotes scientific work, it must, since it can be described as applied science, involve art and practice also. It is necessarily experimental. But that does not mean that it is exclusively scientific. On the contrary, I think that according to the ordinary use of language the "development of mechanical engineering" is a phrase apt to cover all the activities which encourage its growth as a science, an art, an industry or a profession. It is at least satisfactory, though I do not invoke the conduct of the Institution as an aid to the interpretation of its Charter, to find that no less wide a permitted range of activities would justify all that it has done.
A number of cases were cited to us. Some arising out of the Act we are now considering, others out of the relevant Income Tax Act, in which somewhat similar institutions have obtained the benefit of exemption from rates or income tax, as the case might be. I do not propose to burden your Lordships by a citation and examination of them, as we are affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal and I am content to adopt as my own that part of the judgment which dealt with them. Each case must be decided on the language of its constitutive instrument. Some cases must be near the line and I should myself have found some difficulty in concurring in all the decisions that have been given. But the present case is not, I think, near the line but, on the contrary, is one in which the structure of the Institution, its avowed purposes and its actual practice place it altogether outside the scope of the Act. I reject the idea that the Legislature intended the neighbours of such a society to bear the burden of rates which it did not share.
There, my Lords, I might leave the matter, for the first condition of exemption is not satisfied. But your Lordships heard so much argument upon the second question, namely, whether the Institution is supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions, that I ought not to neglect it altogether. If I say a few words, I do so with little hope of reconciling past pronouncements, some of them of the highest authority. In the present case the Lands Tribunal dealt with the matter very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SR Projects Ltd v Rampersad, the Liquidator of the Hindu Credit Union Co-Operative Society on behalf of the Hindu Credit Union CoOperative Society Ltd
...224, 263 (Blackburn J); Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Co Ltd v The King [1916] 1 AC 566, 583–584; Institution of Mechanical Engineers v Cane [1961] AC 696, 724–725; Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank [2010] EWCA Civ 579; [2012] QB 549, para 29 In the 19th century it was for some time uncertai......
-
Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Others
...Co. Ltd v. The King [1916] 1 A.C. 566, 583, 584, and in the speech of Lord Denning in Institution of Mechanical Engineers v. Cane [1961] A.C. 696, 724, 39Arising from these two passages a further important point is to be noted. It is that care must be taken when using terms such as "capaci......
-
Kok Seng Chong v Bukit Turf Club and Another
...Associations by Jean Warburton (2nd Ed, 1992) at p 15, Institution of Mechanical Engineers v Cane and Westminster Corporation [1961] AC 696[1960] 3 All ER 715[1960] 3 WLR 978 at pp 724-725, and 6 Halsbury`s Laws of England (4th Ed, 1991) para 201). The plaintiff is admittedly not a member o......
-
Kok Seng Chong v Bukit Turf Club and Another
...Associations by Jean Warburton (2nd Ed, 1992) at p 15, Institution of Mechanical Engineers v Cane and Westminster Corporation [1961] AC 696[1960] 3 All ER 715[1960] 3 WLR 978 at pp 724-725, and 6 Halsbury`s Laws of England (4th Ed, 1991) para 201). The plaintiff is admittedly not a member o......
-
Cases referred to in 1983
...Will Trusts (1949) Ch. 296. 228 Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Frere (1965) A.C. 402. 229 Institution of Mechanical Engineers v. Cane (1961) A.C. 696 at 724. 495 lsiyaku Mohammed v. Kano N.A. (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 424. 2 lsiyaku Mohammed v. Kano N.A. 1968 1 All N.L.R 42. 564 lsiyaku Mohammed......