Jones and Others, - Plaintiffs in Error; "The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board" Trustees, - Defendants in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1865 |
| Date | 22 June 1865 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 11 E.R. 1405
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. v. 9; xi. 1594, 1648, 1703; S.C. 35 L.J. M.C. 1; 13 W.R. 1069; 20 C.B. N.S. 56. (ii.) Mews' Dig. xi. 639; cf. 29 L.J. C.P. 239; 2 L.T. 243; 8 C.B. N.S. 114; 6 Jur. N.S. 960. Discussed and followed in Leith Harbour Commissioners v. Inspector of Poor, 1866, L.R. 1 Sc. and Div. 17; considered in Tunnicliffe v. Birkdale Overseers, 1887, 1888, 19 Q.B.D. 282; 20 Q.B.D. 451; and cf. Dewsbury and Heckmondwike, etc., Board v. Penistone Union (Assessment Committee of), 1885, 16 Q.B.D. 594; and Middlesex County Council v. St. George's Hanover Square, 1897, 69 L.J. Q.B. 101; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Birkenhead Union, 1901, 70 L.J. K.B. 584.
Poor Rate - Property - Occupation - Public Purposes - 43 Eliz. c. 2.
"The MERSEY DOCKS and HARBOUR BOARD" TRUSTEES,- Plaintiffs Error; WILLIAM CAMERON and Others,- Defendants in Error [February^ ò/ 18, 19, 22, 23, July 7, 1864]. JONES and Others,- Plaintiffs in Error; " Th/?^.- ò MERSEY DOCKS and HARBOUR BOARD " TRUSTEES,- Defendants irfarfr- Error [June 22, 1865]. - 2 [(i.) Mews' Dig. v. 9; xi. 1594, 1648, 1703; S.C. 35 L.J. M.C. 1; 13 W.R. 1069; 'J' 20 C.B. N.S. 56. (ii.) Mews' Dig. xi. 639; cf. 29 L.J. C.P. 239; 2 L.T. 243; /*/- ò' 8 C.B. N.S. 114; 6 Jur. N.S. 960. Discussed and followed in Leith Harbour Commissioners v. Inspector of Poor, 1866, L.R. 1 Sc. and Div. 17; considered in Tunnicliffe v. Birkdale Overseers, 1887, 1888, 19 Q.B.D. 282; 20 Q.B.D. 451 ; and cf. Dewsbury and Heckmondwike, etc., Board v. Penistone Union (Assessment Committee of), 1885, 16 Q/.B.D. 594; and Middlesex: \Cpvi)fy /c ... Council v. St. George's Hanover Square, 1897, 69 L.J. Q.B. 101 ; Mersey Docks ,'ä,ä , and, Harbour Board v. Birkenhead Union, 1901, 70 L.J. K.B. 584.] ai&-i Poor Rate - Property - Occupation - Public Purposes - 43 EUz. c. 2. . . The Crown not being named in the 43 Eliz., c. 2, is not bound by its enactments?^^^ Property therefore in the occupation of the Crown, or in that of persons*?-^?- using it exclusively in and for the service of the Crown, is not rateable to thfrff MJ- relief of the poor. 1 30? The statute is, in its provisions, general and inclusive, and no other principle * ]_ '*ò* applying to create an exemption from those provisions, all property capable f^ /frfi/ of beneficial occupation, and which if let to a tenant would be capable of pro-^/v^ X'*? , ducing rent, is liable to be rated, though in the hands of trustees who occupy it under Acts of Parliament for the maintenance of works declared to b*J^*e *- No: beneficial to the public, though such trustees derive no benefit from the occu' etc* ...0'o^,E: pation, and though the revenues arising from such occupation are exclusive!^ ,^?'*J 1 0-applied to the maintenance of the works. Trustees who were constituted by Acts of Parliament, " The Mersey Docks Board," and were specially appointed to have the control of certain docks, etc., vested in them as such trustees, in order to maintain these docks for the benefit of the shipping frequenting [444] the port of Liverpool, were therefore held liable to be rated as occupiers, though they occupied such docks, etc., only for the purposes of these Acts and derived no benefit from the occupation. The King v. The Commissioners of the Suiter's Load Sluice, 4 T.R. 730; and The King v. Liverpool, 7 B. and C. 61, overruled. Recent Acts expressly declared that certain warehouses and parts of the docks, then for the first time erected and put under the control of the trustees, were to be liable to rates. Per Lord Chelmsford : These acts did not by implication declare that the other parts of the docks were not liable to rates. In each of these cases trustees constituting the " Mersey Docks and Harbour Board " had brought in the Court of Common Pleas an action of replevin, to try the question of their liability to a rate for the relief of the poor. 1405 XI H.L.C.,B MERSEY DOCKS V. CAMERON-JONES V. MERSEY DOCKS [1864-65] Jones and others were the churchwardens and overseers of the town and parish of Liverpool, and had levied a poors' rate assessed at £20,580 18s. 8d. as the amount payable by the dock trustees in respect of the dock estates within the parish of Liverpool. A Special Case was agreed on, which set forth, in substance, the following facts: The dock estates in the parish of Liverpool were, by different Acts of Parliament, vested in the mayor, aldermen, and common council of the borough of Liverpool, as trustees of the docks and harbour of that town. Part of these estates had been granted by the corporation, part sold by the corporation to the trustees, and part purchased by the trustees from private individuals. These Acts of Parliament were 22 in number, and extended from the 8th Anne to the 21st Viet., both inclusive. The case gave both parties leave to refer to them. The dock estates consist of docks, basins, etc., and the trustees are by several Acts of Parliament authorised to receive dock rates and duties in respect of the accommodation of vessels in the docks. By the 20 and 21 Viet., c. clxii. [445] (local and personal), " An Act for Consolidating the Docks at Liverpool and Birkenhead into' one Estate, and for vesting the control and management of them in one Public Trust all the Docks and other real property situated at Liverpool," that were held by or in trust for the trustees of the Liverpool Docks, were vested in the Plaintiffs, to whom the name of " The Mersey Dock and Harbour Board," was given, subject to all charges and liabilities affecting the same. The Plaintiffs were to stand possessed of all the property, privileges, etc., " upon the trusts, and for the. purposes for which such property, privileges, etc., were holden previously to the commencement of the Act." The rules with respect to the moneys received under the Act had for their object the convenience and safety of shipping frequenting the port of Liverpool, which general purpose had been expressly declared in all the Acts. The 59th section of this Act enacted that, " The board shall render to Parliament, as soon as may be after the 24th day of June in every year, an account of its receipts during the preceding year, and the manner in which the same have been applied." The board was bound to apply all the moneys received in the manner and for the purposes provided by these various Acts, and the case stated that " no member of the board derives any private advantage or emolument whatsoever from the execution of the trusts of the dock estate." All the revenue derived from any of the property is carried to the account of the general dock estate, and is appropriated and applied as directed by the Acts. By the 4 Viet., c. xxx., s. 52, the trustees were empowered to build warehouses on the quays of one of the docks (a power by the 11 Viet., c. xxx., s. 3 extended to all the dock quays), and by section 71 of the first-mentioned Act, and section 4 of the second-mentioned Act, [446] such warehouses were expressly made subject to all parochial and other rates.* None of the warehouses built in pursuance of these Acts is included in the assessment, the subject of this proceeding. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Trustees were rateable to the relief of the poor in respect of property in the parish of Liverpool other than that included in the two last-mentioned Acts? The Court of Common Pleas in the case of Jones gave judgment in favour of the Mersey Dock Trustees, in conformity with the case of the King v. The Inhabitants of Liverpool (7 B. and C. 61). In the case of Cameron, which related to a rate levied on the trustees in respect of property within the parish of Birkenhead, the question of liability to rate was likewise discussed, but another point was also raised, namely, whether an action of replevin was maintainable. The Court, on this second point, thought that there ought to be judgment for the Defendants, on the ground that the Plaintiffs ought to have appealed against the rate to the sessions, and ought not to have left it un-appealed against, and then contested its enforcement by an action of replevin (30 L.J., Mag. Gas., 185, 194; 8 Com. Ben., N.S., 114). Appeals in the two cases were * In The King v. The Inhabitants of Liverpool, 7 Barn, and Cres. 61 (a.d.) 1827, the Court of King's Bench had held that the Liverpool Docks were not rateable to the relief of the poor, on the ground that the Acts for creating the docks had directed how the money received for their use should be applied, namely, in manufacturing the docks, and if there was any surplus, the dock dues were to be lowered accordingly, " and to no other purpose or use whatsoever." 1406 MERSEY DOCKS V. CAMERON-JONES V. MERSEY DOCKS [1864-65] XI H.L.C., 447 then brought. The judges were summoned, and Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Byles, Mr. Justice Blackburn, Mr. Justice Mellor, and Mr. Baron Pigott, attended. [447] Mr. Bovill and Mr. Mellish (Mr. Crompton Button was with them) for the overseers in support of the rate. The simple question in this case is what is the construction that ought to be put upon the statute 43 Eliz. c. 21 The decisions on it are numerous, and have not been very consistent. Exceptions to its provisions have been introduced, which it is submitted are not warranted on principle; and the object of these appeals is to obtain a definitive declaration of the principle on which that statute is to be construed. The words of the statute are simple-they give no other test of liability to rate except occupancy. They direct the overseers " to raise by taxation of every inhabitant and of every occupier of lands, houses, etc. in the said parish," the money required. It has been supposed that the occupation thus rendered liable must be òone beneficial to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commissioner of Federal Capital of Kuala Lumpur; Home Luck Investments Sdn Bhd
-
O'Neill v Commissioner of Valuation; Council of Alexandra College v Same
...R. 173, at p. 180. (3) 78 L. J. K. B. 576. (4) [1904] 2 I. R. 429. (5) [1896] 2 I. R. 538. (1) [1897] 2 I. R. 157, at pp. 170, 171. (2) 11 H. L. Cas. 443. (3) [1896] 2 I. R. 538. (4) [1911] 2 I. R. 173. (5) [1911] 2 I. R. 593. (6) [1912] 2 I. R. (7) [1904] 2 I. R.. (8) 18 Q. B. D. 437. (9) ......
-
In Cork Corporation v Commissioner of Valuation
...and Boyd JJ. (1) I. R. 2 C. L. 577. (1) I. R. 2 C. L. 577. (2) [1897] 2 I. R. 516. (3) [1899] 2 I. R. 214. (4) I. R. 6 C. L. 420. (5) 11 H. L. C. 443, at p. 501. (6) 2 Cl. & F. 331. (7) [1911] 2 I. R. 579. (1) [1899] 2 I. R. 214. (2) 11 H. L. C. 443. (3) 4 T. R. 730. (4) 7 B. & C. 61. (5) 6......
-
Armstrong, Appellant; The Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, Respondent
...& S. 317. (7) 14 Q. B. D. 529. (1) 62 L. T. (N. S.) 321, at p. 325. (2) 14 A. C. 248, at p. 253. (3) 36 I. L. T. R. 163, at p. 164. (4) 11 H. L. Cas. 443. (5) 4 Ir. C. L. R. 394. (6) 14 A. C. 209, at p. 222. (7) 8 A. C. 658, at p. 673. (8) [1904] 2 I. R. 270. (9) [1896] 2 I. R. 560. (10) 21......