Moss' Empires Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Date | 24 October 1916 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Earl Loreburn, Viscount Haldane, Lord Kinnear, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Parmoor.
ValuationValuation-rollFinalityFailure of Assessor to notify proprietor of increased valuationAction for reduction of entryCompetencyJurisdiction of Court of SessionValuation of Lands (Scotland) Act, 1854 (17 and 18 Vict. cap. 91), secs. 5 and 30Want of compliance with the provisions of this ActMaking up Valuation-roll.
The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act, 1854, enacts, by sec. 5, that a copy of every entry in the Valuation-rollexcept where the entry is a mere repetition of the previous year's entryshall be transmitted by the Assessor to the person affected; and, by sec. 30, that no Valuation-roll which shall be made up and authenticated in terms of this Act, and no valuation which shall be contained therein, shall be challengeable, or be capable of being set aside or rendered ineffectual, by reason of any informality, or of any want of compliance with the provisions of this Act, in the proceedings for making up such valuation or Valuation-roll.
An entry in the Valuation-roll having been increased in amount without the statutory notice required by sec. 5 having been given, the person aggrieved brought an action in the Court of Session for reduction of the entry.
Held (affirming judgment of the majority of a Court of seven Judges) (1) that the failure to give notice was not a want of compliance with the provisions for making up the Roll, and so was not exempted from challenge by section 30; (2) that an action in the Court of Session for reduction of the entry was competent, by virtue of the jurisdiction inherent in the Court to grant redress in all cases where the rights of a subject have been infringed through an inferior tribunal, or any administrative body, acting ultra vires of its statutory powers.
Sharp v. Latheron Parochial Board,SC (1883) 10 R. 1163, commented on.
StatuteConstructionEjusdem generisEffect of subsequent section of ambiguous meaning on rights expressly conferred by earlier sections.
Observations upon construing statutes with regard to (1) the application of the rule of ejusdem generis, (2) the difficulty of inferring from a later section of ambiguous meaning the repeal of definite rights expressly conferred by earlier sections.
(In the Court of Session, 18th January 19161916 S. C. 366).
The defenders appealed to the House of Lords.
The case was heard on 23rd and 24th October 1916. Counsel for the respondents were not called on.
Earl Loreburn.In this case the facts are extremely short and simple. A property in Glasgow was valued at 950 a year, and in the Valuation-roll of the succeeding year it was raised to 1300, but no notice was given by the Assessor to the persons affected, the result of which was they had not a reminder that they could appeal. They did not appeal, and they lost the benefit of the statutory right. Those facts are to be assumed, and the question is whether the parties are to be admitted to proof.
Now, upon that the aggrieved parties come to the Court and ask for two thingsin the first place, that the entry should be reduced, and in the second place, that the pre-existing figure should be substituted for the figure of 1300. Those are two quite separate questions, and I deal with the first.
It is said that there is a statutory finality in this Valuation-roll. Whatever finality there be is not created by the general principles of law, but is dependent upon the Act of Parliament; we must therefore look to the sections of the Act of Parliament in order to see what the nature of this Valuation-roll is, and I shall refer to them a little at length because the question arises as to the meaning of some words that are there used.
The Act says that the magistrates shall annually cause to be made up a Valuation-roll; that they may take the assistance of the officers of Inland Revenue; that in order to the making up of such valuation they shall appoint Assessors; that the duty of the Assessors is to ascertain and assess and to make up such Valuation-roll; that a new Valuation-roll is to be made up by the Assessors every year; that the magistrates shall hold a Court for hearing appeals against it, and their deliverances upon such appeals shall be final and conclusive; that all persons who are entered by the Assessor in the Valuation-roll shall be entitled to appeal; that the Valuation-roll when made up by the Assessor is to be retained by him for a certain time; that as soon as the appeals have been heard and the valuation thereby completed, the Valuation-roll shall then be in force; that after the completion of each Valuation-roll the magistrates shall cause an account to be made out of the costs; and then there is a provision in regard to mistakes to which I shall have again to refer.
Now, as I understand it, under this Act the making up of the Valuation-roll is the duty of the Assessor; it is the duty of the magistrates to cause a Valuation-roll to be made up. The duty of the Assessor relates to value and entry; the Valuation-roll is completed when the appeals have been disposed of; it then is to be authenticated, and then the Valuation-roll is in force.
Valuation consists in the ascertaining of the rent or value, which is a matter to be determined by evidence, by opinion, by comparison of values, and it is a question of fact. One would expect that a Court of law would not be permitted to inquire into such matters. One would expect also that technical difficulties would not be allowed to interfere with the validity of the Valuation-roll. That is the character of the finality described, in my opinion, by this statute. One would expect that informalities or errors should be declared to be innocuous and to be disregarded, and also that a Court of law should not be permitted to take the duty of valuation upon itself. As a matter of general principle I certainly consider that unless a Court of law is precluded by statute it may reduce any order or assessment which imposes a liability to pay, unless it is made pursuant to the Act of Parliament conferring the right to make it upon those who do make it. But here there is, as one would expect, a provision for finalitythat is to say, the provision contained in section 30 of this Act of 1854.
The part of section 30 of this Act which is material says that no Valuation-roll which shall be made up and authenticated in terms of this Act, and no valuation which shall be contained therein, shall be challengeable, or be capable of being set aside or rendered ineffectual, by reason of any informality, or of any want of compliance with the provisions of this Act, in the proceedings for making up such valuation or Valuation-roll.
Now here there has been a non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, because notice has not been given. Was that a non-compliance in the proceeding for making up such valuation or Valuation-roll? I do not think that it was. The making up of the Valuation-roll was the duty of the Assessor, and the non-compliance with the Act was not connected with the duty of the Assessor in making up that Valuation-roll, and therefore, in my opinion, this non-compliance is not protected by the 30th section. It seems to me that if, for example, no Assessor were appointed, or no Court of Appeal were appointed, or no notice were given to the persons entitled to notice, the power of the Court to interpose and to reduce the entry has not been taken away. But the failure to comply with the Act in making up the Rollthat is to say, in the Assessor discharging his duty in that respectcould not be considered by the Court.
That seems to me to support entirely the decision of the Inner House in reducing this entry. I do not deal with the ulterior question whether the assessment of the previous year ought to be restored, because that question may never arise; it may appear upon the trial that notice was given, and we ought not to adjudicate upon a hypothesis which may never be realised. The argument of the Dean of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blajosse Charlotte Eba For Judicial Review Of The Refusal Of An Appeal To The First Tier Tribunal
...He accepted, under reference to the speeches of Lord Kinnear and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Moss' Empires v Assessor for Glasgow 1917 SC(HL) 1 at 6 and 11 respectively, that it was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session to keep inferior judicial and administrative bodies right, to......
-
Blajosse Charlotte Eba (ap) V. The Advocate General For Scotland
...House of Lords, that high court of appeal, which is common to both parts of the united kingdom." In Moss' Empires v Assessor for Glasgow 1917 SC (HL) 1 Lord Kinnear, at page 6, observed: "Wherever any inferior tribunal or any administrative body has exceeded the powers conferred upon it by ......
-
WILLIAM LAURISTON WEST Petitioner (Reclaimer) against SCOTTISH PRISON SERVICE Respondents
...throughout the cases in this century which preceded the introduction of Rule of Court 260B. InMoss' Empires v. Assessor for Glasgow 1917 S.C. (H.L.) 1 an action for reduction of an entry in the valuation roll was held to be competent on grounds explained by Lord Kinnear at p. 6: "Now I appr......
-
Brown v Hamilton District Council
...facts, applying the test of satisfaction. Following the dictum of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Moss' Empires v. Assessor for Glasgow1917 S.C. (H.L.) 1, at p. 17, it is not within the power or function of the courts to do work set by the Legislature to be performed by administrative bodies (s......
-
Protective Expenses Orders and public interest litigation
...within the limits of the powers granted to them by Parliament,33Amongst other references, see Moss' Empires Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow 1917 SC (HL) 1; Lord Clyde and D Edwards, Judicial Review (2000), 54–55; and H W R Wade & C F Forsyth, Administrative Law, 10th edn (2010) 30–35. and the le......