Recent Legal Decisions Affecting Public Administration
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1934.tb02373.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1934 |
| Date | 01 January 1934 |
| Author | F. Enever |
Notes
begins
at
home? These
things
are
all
rather vague, perhaps,
not
easily
handled,
or satisfying
to
our
minds,
trained
as
we are,
and
rightly
so,
to base conclusions
on
accounts
and
statistics,
“
the
figuration
of
reality.”
Practical psychology,
it
will
be argued,
is
not
really science. But yet, surely,
it
is more
than
mere rhetoric.
It
seems,
somehow,
to
give
scope for
constructive thought.
Perhaps
it
may
be
worth
while, even
for
busy
people,
immersed
in
the
problems
of
a
scientific profession,
administration,
to
make time to
give it that thought.
If
so,
cannot
the Institute of Public
Administration give us
a
lead?
RECENT
LEGAL
DECISIONS
AFFECTING
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
By
F.
A.
ENEVER,
M.A.,
LL.D.
SYNOPSIS
Rateahlo
of
dtKtI5city
*
:
Rightof’
*
of
Loud
Authorities’
booksf;
;J.iddity
for
bim
from
dog
~=ority*s
~IHI~~&~I-MIRIU~~OII
S&UQO.
Rateable
Assessment
of
ElectriGity
Undertakings
The lengthy litigation which has
arisen
out
of
fhe question
a4
to
the basis applicable
for the assessment
of
rates
on
the undertaking
of
one
of
the large London electric lighting
companies
has
terminated
in
a
decision
of
the
House
of
Lords
dismissing
the Company’s
appeal
from
the judgment of the
Court
of
Appeal
in
St. James’ and
Pall
Mall Electric
Light Company
Ltd.
v.
City
of
Westminster Assessment
Committee
(11
PUBLIC
ADMINIS-
TRATION,
107)
allowing
the
appeal
of
the Assessment Committee from the judgment of
the Divisional
Court.
Lord Atkin, in the
course
of
his
judgment
(in
which the other noble and learned
Lords concurred),
stated
that
according
to
the Metropolitan Valuation
Act
the problem
was what
annual
rent might the Company reasonably be expected. taking one year with
another, to pay for the hereditaments
if
the tenant undertook
to
pay
rates
and
taxes
and
the landlord undertook
to
bear
the
cost
of repairs and
insurance.
It
was obvious that
when
that
formula had
to
be
applied to occupiers who carried
on
such undertakings
as
mines, docks and
harbours,
sewage and drainage works,
railways,
water,
gas
and electric
lighting works,
it
was inept. The Legislature having refrained from giving
any
assistance
in
the matter, the rights ad obligations
of
occupiers and rating authorittes over an
important field of
rating
were determined by rules of law which were entirely
based
on
judicial decisions adopting or modifying the suggestions of rating surveyors and
accountants.
The most
usual
method adopted for determining what rent
a
hypothetical tenant
might reasonably
be
expected to pay
to
a
hypoi+etical landlor,! in the
imaginary
circum-
stances premised in the Act
was
the
so-called
profits
basis
which, by an interesting
development-of judicial decision,
was
now held
to
be the
system
which ought
to
be
adopted
in
the absence of special circumstances. That system was founded
on
an
inquiry
as
to
how
much the tenant would pay for the privilege of occupying the premises and
making what he could out of the undertaking he carried
on
there, which, roughly
speaking, was
that
the
gross
receipts
of
the undertaker were taken for the year
of
calcu-
lation, from which were deducted the
expenses
of
earning those receipts. From the
residue
a
tenant’s
share
was deducted,
a
hypothetical sum which represented what the
tenant might reasonably
be
saMed
with
for
his
“
profits,” which would include interest
on
capital remuneration for
his
industry and compensation
for
risk. The residue would
be
the landlord‘s
share
or
rent.
The h thetical fund which
was
assumed
to be divided
was
not calcdated
so as
to
represent
tl?
e profits
of
the undertaking.
In
considering the application
of
that
system
to
the present case.
His
Lordship stated
that
in
1925
the Electricity Commissioners were proposing
to
set up
a
Joint Electricity
Authority for London and the Home Counties and
an
agreement was made between the
London County Council and the Electric Light Companies under which the Joint
Authority took the place
of
the London County
Council
as
the ultimate purchaser. The
purchase was postponed
to
1971.
Instead
of
the new authority aying
in
1971
the value
charge.
As
to
assets
which came
into
existence
after
1925
they were
to
pay the difference
between
cost
and
the amount
of
a
sinking
fund
to
meet the
cost,
which was one of the
of
the physical
assets
existing
in
1925,
they were
to
have
&
em
transferred
free
of
69
To continue reading
Request your trial