R v Assessment Committee of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1891 |
| Date | 1891 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Poor Rate - Objections to Valuation List - Assessment Committee, Procedure before - Right to appear by Agent -
By the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 103), s. 18, any person aggrieved by a valuation list may give notice of objection, and by s. 19 the assessment committee shall hold meetings for hearing objections, and “may at such meeting hear and determine such objections.”
A householder objected to a valuation list, and, at the hearing before the assessment committee, did not appear personally, but was represented by another person, who claimed to be heard as his agent in support of the objections. The committee refused to hear such person, on the ground that their rule was not to hear any one other than the objector himself or a member of his family or household, or a member of the legal profession.
On an application for a mandamus to compel the committee to hear the agent:—
Held, that, as the statute gives the objector the right to appear and be heard in support of his objections, and contains no provision prohibiting him from appearing by an agent, the committee were bound to hear the agent, and a mandamus must be granted.
A RULE NISI had been obtained on behalf of Mr. Preston, a householder in the parish of Saint Mary Abbotts, Kensington, for a mandamus commanding the assessment committee to hear and determine the matter of certain objections to a valuation list made by or on behalf of the prosecutor, and to hear his agent and witnesses. The prosecutor, Mr. Preston, did not appear personally before the assessment committee in support of his objections, but deputed Mr. Fuller, who was a surveyor and the manager of a ratepayers' association of which Mr. Preston was a member, to act as his agent and appear in that capacity before the assessment committee in support of his objections to the valuation list. Mr. Fuller accordingly appeared and claimed to be heard on behalf of Mr. Preston, and also to give evidence as a skilled witness in the case. The assessment committee refused to hear Mr. Fuller, as Mr. Preston's agent, in support of the objections, on the ground that their rule was to hear no one other than the objector himself or a member of his family or household, or a member of the legal profession; but they considered the facts without hearing him, and left the valuation list as it stood.F1
Henn Collins, Q.C., and J. V. Austin, for the assessment committee, shewed cause. The assessment committee are empowered and required by statute to hear and determine objections to the valuation list, and therefore act in a judicial capacity, and have power to regulate their own proceedings, and determine what persons they will or will not hear. This is so in the case of magistrates in summary proceedings: Collier v. HicksF2; also in the case of quarter sessions: Ex parte EvansF3; and in the case of an arbitrator: In re Macqueen and the Nottingham Caledonian Society.F4 If it were otherwise, there would be no check on the appointment of improper persons to appear and be heard as agents. The contention on behalf of the assessment committee is supported by the use of the word “decision” in 32 & 33 Vict. c. 67, s. 32.
[They also referred to Willis v. MaclachlanF5; Reg. v. Mansel JonesF6; Reg. v. Williamson.F7]
Philbrick, Q.C., in support of the rule. Where a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Board of Appeal; ex parte Kay
-
National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Another
...the rules of natural justice. The Court of Appeal did not accept this contention and appears to have accepted that Reg. v Assessment Committee of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington [1891] 1 Q.B. 378, C.A., was authority to the contrary.’ At page 63, Lyell J said: ‘In view of the many authorities ......
- Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation ; Same v Hat Trick Productions Ltd
-
General Medical Council v British Broadcasting Corporation
...approaching the categorisation of a body entrusted with a judicial function in the same way as it had done in the St.Mary Abbotts case [1891] 1 QB 378. It considered that the existence of a judicial function did not necessarily make the body to which it was entrusted "a court of law"; nor ......