Perrins v Draper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BIRKETT,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0723-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 23 July 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0723-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir Raymond Evershed)
Lord Justice Birkett and
Lord Justice Morris
In The Matter of the Local Government Act, 1948.
In The Matter of an Appeal to the Lands Tribunal against a Decision of the Local Valuation Court for Dorset
and
In The Matter of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949 Section 3 (4).
MR. W.M. HUNTLEY (instructed by Messrs Church, Adams, Tatham & Co., agents for Messrs Burges, Salmon & Co., Bristol) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Draper.
MR. MAURICE LYELL (instructed by The Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Perrins.
In my judgment, the Lands Tribunal came to a perfectly correct conclusion in this case. The question which they had to determine and which we now have to determine relates to certain buildings. These are illustrated on a plan we have got and they constitute a dairy with the usual apparatus for cooling milk and also as I understand pasteurising milk. This dairy is situated upon certain land which belongs to — I use that phrase because I do not know the nature of his interest, which is indeed irrelevant — Mr. Draper, the Appellant before us, and is in his occupation, he being also the occupant of some 64 acres of agricultural land used by him as a dairy farmer for the production of milk. These farm premises were formerly part of a larger farm known as Havelins Farm with a total area of 364 acres; but save for the building in question and the 64 acres which I have mentioned the rest of the farm is occupied not by Mr. Draper, the present Appellant, but by his brother. I gather that (possibly upon the father's death or otherwise) the farm was divided and that part of it which contained this dairy building was taken over by the present Appellant.
The facts stated in the Case show that the operations of cooling and in some measure of pasteurising in this dairy are applied not only to the milk produced on the Appellant's 64 acres but also to a quantity of milk — substantially larger — which the Appellant takes over or acquires from his brother. The figures given are expressed in terms of daily output: the Appellant gets 50 gallons of milk from his own 64 acres and four times that amount, or 200 gallons, from his brother, and the total, 250 gallons per day, is together treated — that is, cooled and in a measure pasteurised — in the Appellant's dairy. It is also stated that in order to maintain the level of his sales Mr. Draper may on occasion acquire further milk from outside; but for the purpose of this appeal that can be ignored.
Those being the only relevant facts, the question, and the sole question, in the appeal is whether this building, this dairy, is an "agricultural building" within the meaning of section 2, subsection 2, of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928. The definition is as follows; "'Agricultural buildings' means the buildings other than dwelling-houses occupied together with agricultural land" (and then there is a reference to market gardening which can be omitted) "and used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon". Now as a matter of English it seems to me that so far as is relevant that definition is quite plain in its terms and meaning. The word "thereon" at the end of the definition must mean the agricultural land together with which the building is occupied, and the question therefore is (and it is the only question in the case) whether this dairy is being used solely in connection with some agricultural operations on the land with which the building is occupied.
It is not, of course, open to doubt that maintaining a herd of dairy cattle is an agricultural operation and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Pig Progeny Testing Board v Greenall
...used for purposes very much connected with the use of the buildings. Both in that case and the later case of ( Perrins v. Draper 1953. 1 Weekly Law Reports, 1178) the Court of Appeal held that the word "thereon" at the end of the section meant "on the land" and not as Mr Blundoll would have......
-
Deeside Poultry Ltd v Assessor for Aberdeenshire
...9 Thompson v. Milk Marketing Board, [1952] 2 Q. B. 817, Somervell L. J. at pp. 820, 821, Hodson L. J. at p. 825; Perrins v. Draper, [1953] 1 W. L. R. 1178, Lord Evershed M. R. at p. 10 Assessor for Inverness-shire v. Cameron, 1938 S. C. 360, Lord Robertson at p. 369. 11 Peddie v. Assessor f......
- Courtman (Vo) v West Devon and North Cornwall Farmers Ltd
-
Gilmore v Baker-Carr
...building Is used solely In connection with those operations on that land, end not in connection with operations on some other land: see Perrins v. Draper, 1953, 1 Weekly Law Reports, p. 1178. The typical case is the cowshed where the farmer milks his cows or the barn where he stores his co......