R v Westminster (City) London Borough Council Rent Officer, ex parte Rendall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Civ J0515-2 |
| Date | 15 May 1973 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1973] EWCA Civ J0515-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by the Appellant Bent Officer from order of the queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice dated 6th April 1973.
Revised.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Orr and
Lord Justice Lawton.
The Honourable SAMUEL SILKIN, Q. C, and Mr. MICHAEL BURKE-GAFFNEY (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr. W. A. MACPHERSON, Q. C., and Mr. COLIN MACKAY (instructed by Messrs. J. Hird Williams) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
In London the rent officers have jurisdiction to register a fair rent for a dwelling-house when the rateable value is under £400, The problem in this case arises when the dwelling-house is only part of a big house.
No. 9 Green Street, Mayfar, has six floors. The rateable value of the whole house at the material time was £1597, but it had never been apportioned between the six floors. There was a tenant on the ground floor. On 16th August 1971, he applied to the rent officer for the registration of a fair rent. The premises were described in the application as: "Ground floor only: sitting room, kitchen (backroom) lavatory, hall. There is no bathroom, no bedrooms (as such), no storage room, and no heating system." The tenancy was said to have commenced on 18th January 1971 and the rent to be £1092 a year in advance exclusive of rates and no services provided. The tenant proposed that the fair rent should be £500. The ground floor was not separately rated at all: it was only one floor in this big house. The tenant put the rateable value as £1597 for the six floors".
Seeing that there was no separate rateable value for this ground floor, the rent officer made his own assessment of it. He thought it was less than £400 and therefore within his jurisdiction. He said in his affidavit now he did it: "It appeared to me that any apportionment of the rateable value of £1597 applicable to the entire building (for the purpose of deciding whether I had jurisdiction or not) must produce a rabble value in respect of the said ground floor flat substantially less than £400 and accordingly I proceeded with the application. I found that the apportionment in respect of the said flat of the rateable value shown in the Valuation List for the whole hereditament was £250. Subsequently, I determined that the fair rent which ought to be registered was £450 per annum."
The then landlord did not make any representation against the figures. So the fair rent was registered as £450 a year.
Subsequently the then landlord sold the reversion. The new purchaser applied to the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari. He asserted that the rent officer had no jurisdiction to determine a fair rent for tills ground floor flat. He contended that where it was necessary to apportion the rateable value of a whole house, the only body who could make the apportionment was the County Court. He said that the rent officer had no Jurisdiction to apportion it himself so as to give himself jurisdiction. He said that the rent officer here was wrong in saying to himself; "The rateable value of this ground floor must be less than £400. It is only £250." That argument succeeded before the Divisional Court. They quashed the entry in the register. The rent officer appeals to this Court.
The matter is of much importance. We are told that in a great number of similar cases rent officers have proceeded on the same basis. If it appear to the rent officer that, on an apportionment, the rateable value of the part would be well under the £400, the rent officer assumes jurisdiction to determine a fair rent. Thousands of cases have been dealt with on that footing. Now this practice is challenged.
In considering the problem, I would first draw attention to section 1(3) of the 1968 Act. It says:
"If any question arises in any proceedings whether a dwelling-house is within the limits of rateable value in subsection (1)(a) above, it shall be deemed to be within those limits unless the contrary is shown."
The Divisional Court thought that that provision did not apply, because there were no "proceedings". Lord Widgery, ChiefJustice, said: "In my Judgment the Rent Officer, when he received this application and considered his right to determine it, was not engaged in any proceedings."
I am afraid I take a different view. The word "proceedings" is not defined in the Act, but I think it covers any proceedings of a legal nature, even though they do not take place in a Court of law. Heading through Schedule 6 of the Rent net 1968 (which sets out the procedure on applications to rent officers) I have no doubt that t. ie application to a rent officer and the ensuing steps are "proceedings". The Schedule contains provisions for notice to be served on the other party, for representations to be made, and consultation to be had, and so forth. There is also a significant provision in paragraph 3 which says that if no representation is made against the rent specified in the application, then the rent officer "may register...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Alcontara; PP
-
Minister for Justice v Information Commissioner
...was held in public. Pryor v. City Offices Company (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 504;R. v. Westminster City London Borough Rent Officer, ex p. Rendall [1973] Q.B. 959; Krextile Holdings Pty. Ltd. v. Widdows [1974] V.R. 689; Elliott v. Auckland City [1971] N.Z.L.R. 824 considered. 2. That, having regard t......
- Macchia v Nilant
- Mccallum v Federal Commissioner of Taxation