R v Lands Tribunal, ex parte City of London Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE OLIVER,LORD JUSTICE WATKINS |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1981 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1981] EWCA Civ J1103-4 |
| Docket Number | 81/0538 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 03 November 1981 |
[1981] EWCA Civ J1103-4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE NEWEY, Q.C., sitting as
a Judge of the High Court)
Royal Courts of Justice.
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Oliver
and
Lord Justice Watkins
81/0538
MR. DAVID WIDDICOMBE, Q.C. and MISS SUSAN HAMILTON (instructed by C. Cullum Smith, Esq., and Messrs. Crossman, Block & Keith) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. BERNARD MARDER, Q.C. and MR. JEREMY SULLIVAN (instructed by the Controller & City Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
MR. ALAN FLETCHER (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. BERNARD MARDER, Q.C. and MR. JEREMY SULLIVAN (instructed by the Controller & City Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
MR. DAVID WIDDICOMBE, Q.C. and MISS SUSAN HAMILTON (instructed by C. Cullum Smith, Esq., and Messrs. Crossman, Block & Keith) appeared on behalf of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents.
There are three public houses in the City of London. One is the "Sir Christopher Wren" in Cathedral Place: another is "The Cock Tavern" in Fleet Street: and the third is "The Magogs" in Russia Row. A question has arisen as to what the rateable value of those public houses should be. The valuation officer inserted his figures in the valuation list. But the Corporation of the City of London were dissatisfied with them. So the matter went on appeal to the Lands Tribunal—which is now the tribunal designated to deal with rating questions such as this.
In the course of the proceedings the Corporation of the City of London said that the valuation was too low. They submitted that the rateable value ought to be assessed on a new basis. In aid of this submission the Corporation of the City of London want to see the profit and loss accounts and other details of the business of these three public houses. They want discovery of the documents relating to the takings in those houses.
Before the appeals were heard by the Lands Tribunal, there were pre-trial applications. No application was made for discovery then. But it was raised at the beginning of the appeals. Mr. Emlyn Jones, the member of the Lands Tribunal who was hearing the appeals, refused to order discovery at that stage. He also expressed the opinion that he had no power to state a case, and refused a stay of the proceedings.
The Corporation then went straight to the Divisional Court and asked for leave to apply for judicial review. They asked for an order that the Lands Tribunal should state and sign a case for the decision of the Court of Appeal. They said that the Lands Tribunal were bound to state a case.
His Honour Judge Newey accepted the Corporation's submission: and directed that a case should be stated by the Lands Tribunal on the matter. A case has now been stated.
But there is a preliminary point to be decided. Was the judge right in ordering the Lands Tribunal to state a case? It is submitted to us that the Lands Tribunal cannot be required to state a case on an interlocutory point such as discovery of documents. It can only be required to state a case on a final award.
This point depends on the true interpretation of section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949, which provides:
"A decision of the Lands Tribunal shall be final:
Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision as being erroneous in point of law may, within such time as may be limited by rules of court, require the tribunal to state and sign a case for the decision of the court…"
The Corporation of the City of London say that the word "decision" in that subsection includes not only a final decision but an interlocutory decision. But on the other side it is said, "No; it only refers to a final decision of the Lands Tribunal and not an interlocutory decision".
My own view is that the Lands Tribunal can only state a case on a final decision, not on an interlocutory matter. The principal reason is because there is ample other machinery available for interlocutory matters.
One way is by applying to a High Court judge. This is provided for by section 3(6)(c) and rule 38 of the Lands Tribunal Rules. It brings in section 12(6) of the Arbitration Act 1950 which says this:
"The High Court shall have…the same power of making orders in respect of…(b) discovery of documents and interrogatories…as it has for the purpose of and in relation to an action or matter in the High Court:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be taken to prejudice any power which may be vested in an arbitrator or umpire of making orders with respect of any of the matters aforesaid".
It seems to me that the rules of the Lands Tribunal, by incorporating section 12 (6) of the 1950 Act, show that the High Court has power to make an order for discovery of documents in relation to proceedings which are going on in the Lands Tribunal. But that power is without prejudice to any power which the Lands Tribunal itself may have of making orders.
Another way is by applying to the registrar of the Lands Tribunal. Rule 40 gives the registrar power to order discovery. It says:
"A party to proceedings shall deliver to the registrar on his request any document or other information which the Tribunal may require and which it is in the power of that party to deliver and shall afford to every other party to the proceedings an opportunity to inspect those documents (or copies of them) and to take copies:
"Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to require any information to be disclosed contrary to the public interest".
This is followed by rule 45 which tells how interlocutory applications are to be made. It says:
"Except where these Rules otherwise provide, an application for directions of an interlocutory nature in connection with any proceedings shall, unless otherwise ordered by the President, be made to the registrar…
"The registrar may, and shall if so required by the applicant or by a party objecting to an application under this rule, refer the application to the President for decision.
"A party aggrieved by a decision of the registrar on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheltered Housing Management Limited V. A Decision Of The Lands Tribunal For Scotland, Communicated To The Appellants On 9th June 2008, Margaret Jackson, Respondent
...1 W.L.R. 1400 at paragraph 18. [18] Finally counsel drew our attention to Regina v Lands Tribunal, ex parte City of London Corporation [1982] 1 W.L.R. 258. It involved the interpretation of sections (3) and (4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949, which provided for the stating of a case require......
-
Sheltered Housing Management Ltd v Jack
...v McAllisterSC 2003 SC 514; 2003 SLT 971; [2004] RVR 177; 2003 Hous LR 45 R v Lands Tribunal, ex p City of London CorporationWLRUNKUNK[1982] 1 WLR 258; [1982] 1 All ER 892; (1982) 80 LGR 564 Rohatgi v Health Care Complaints Commission (CA 40165/96) Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New Sout......
-
CAF 3923 2006
...1 QB 920 and Loade v Director of Public Prosecutions [1990] 1 QB 1052) and R v Lands Tribunal, ex parte City of London Corporation [1982] 1 WLR 258 on whether the Lands Tribunal had a power in such circumstances. The answer in all three cases was in the negative. Those authorities were help......
-
Proctor and Gamble Company v Controller of Patents
... ... (2) SI 199/1996 RSC O.94 r.46 R V LANDS TRIBUNAL EX PARTE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION 1981 ... ...