Matthews v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1914 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Revenue - Land Values - Provisional Valuation - Appeal from Referee - Order to pay Costs - Rule of Court -
By s. 33, sub-s. 1, of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, any person aggrieved may appeal against a determination by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the total value or site value of any land. By sub-s. 2 the appeal is to be referred to a referee. By sub-s. 3 the referee is to determine any matter referred to him in consultation with the Commissioners and the appellant, and may order that any expenses incurred by the appellant be paid by the Commissioners; and “any order of a referee as to expenses may be made a rule of Court.”
On the hearing of an appeal under this enactment the referee made an order “that the costs of the appellant incidental to this appeal be borne by the Commissioners.”
On a motion to make this order a rule of Court:—
Held, that the order was good and could be made a rule of Court.
MOTION on behalf of the appellant Marian E. Matthews that an order of a referee under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as to costs should be made a rule of Court under s. 33, sub-s. 3, of the Act. The referee by his decision on an appeal against the provisional valuation of a certain hereditament owned by the appellant assessed the gross value, total value, and site value thereof at 23, 690l., and ordered that “the costs of the appellant incidental to this appeal be borne by the Commissioners.” He did not assess the amount of the costs, and the object of the present motion, to which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were made respondents, was to enable the costs to be ascertained by taxation.
W. Allen, for the motion. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue do not oppose the motion. Under s. 33 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910F1, the Court has power to make the order of the referee as to costs a rule of Court. It would be very convenient if the Court could give a direction that in future in similar cases the order should be filed in the office indorsed with the consent of the other party and made a rule without it being necessary for counsel to appear.
W. Finlay, for the respondents. The Commissioners consent to the order asked for on the motion being made. In Simpson v. Inland Revenue CommissionersF2 the...
To continue reading
Request your trial