Royal College of Nursing v St. Marylebone B. C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MORRIS,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 1959 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1959] EWCA Civ J1027-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 27 October 1959 |
[1959] EWCA Civ J1027-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Morris,
Lord Justice Romer and
Lord Justice Willimer.
Mr J.P. WIDGERY, Q.C., and Mr R. BLANSHARD STAMP (instructed by Messrs Sharpe, Pritchard & Co.) appeared on behalf of the St. Marylebone Corporation (Appellants).
Mr LESLIE G. SCARMAN, Q.C., Mr ERIC BLAIN and Mr MICHAEL MANN (instructed by Messrs Charles Russell & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Royal College (Respondents).
I will ask Lord Justice Romer to read the Judgment of the court.
This is an appeal by the St. Marylebone Corporation against an Order of the Divisional Court dismissing the Corporation's appeal by way of Case Stated by the Appeals Committee of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of London. The question at issue is whether the Royal College of Nursing (hereinafter referred to as "the College") are entitled to rating relief under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 in respect of certain hereditaments occupied by the College boing 1 and 1A Henrietta Place, London, W. In January 1957 the Corporation rejected the College's claim to relief but an appeal from that rejection to Quarter Sessions was successful and the Divisional Court upheld the decision of Quarter Sessions.
So far as material section 8 of the 1955 Act provides as follows: "(1) This section applies to the following hereditaments, that is to say - (a) any hereditament occupied for the purposes of an organisation (whether corporate or unincorporate) which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare". Then the sub-divisions of the section give a certain measure of relief from rates to these hereditaments.
The College, which is admittedly not conducted for profit, was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1928. The following provisions of the Charter are or may be material. It begins with the recital: "Where as 'The College of Nursing, Limited', hereinafter referred to as 'the said Company', a Company incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1908 and 1913, has presented to us in Our Council a Humble Petition setting forth:-
"That the said Company was so incorporated for the purposes set forth and mentioned in its Memorandum of Association, and that it was there by provided (inter alie) that the income and property of the Company should be applied solely towards the promotion of these purposes:
That the said Company has during the last ten years created an organisation, acquired promises and property, and promoted reforms directed to the said purposes:
That the said Company proposes to place at the disposal of, and to transfer to, and vest in, the proposed Corporation, when incorporated under Our Charter, the said premises and other property and existing organisation:
That the said Company believes that the incorporation under Our Charter of the proposed Corporation will be for the public advantage, and will tend to the advancement of the science and art of nursing, and further to improve the education of nurses in the said science and art:
"And Most Humbly Praying Us In Our Council to grant Our Charter of Incorporation to the President and other Members for the time being of the proposed Corporation under the name and style of 'The College of Nursing' and with such powers and privileges and in such manner in all respects as to Us in Our Council may seem fit".
By the first Article the President and other members for the time boing of the Corporation were constituted and created one body corporate with the name "The College" and "The College of Nursing". By Article II it is provided: "The purposes for which the College is established and incorporated are as follows: (A) To acquire and take over all the assets, property, possessions, effects, and liabilities of the said Company.(B) To promote, by means of such assets and otherwise, the purposes here in after set out and in particular", and I need not road them all. "(a) To promote the science and art of nursing and the better education and training of nurses and their efficiency in the profession of nursing. (b) To promote the advance of nursing as a profession in all or any of its branches. (c) To institute and conduct examinations in all branches of women's work conducive to the efficient conduct of the nursing profession and to grant Certificates and Diplomas to those who pass prescribed examinations: Provided no Certificate or Diploma shall confer any right to the privilege of a nurse registered in pursuance of an Act of Parliament. (f) To provide establish and maintain for the purposes herein mentioned in London and elsewhere offices, examination halls. and lecture rooms, with all requisite equipment, and to institute and provide courses of lectures and demonstrations", and "(j) To do all such other lawful things as may from time to time be conducive to the attainment and furtherance of the above objects or any of them".
Upon the matter being heard by Quarter Sessions their decision was as follows: "We were of opinion that the main objects of the Appellants were such as to attract the application of section 8 of the Act".
This finding of Quarter Sessions being somewhat wanting in precision the Divisional Court, upon the appeal coming before them, remitted the Case for an answer to the following questions:- "(1) What is or are the main object or objects of the College? (2) In the case of such object or objects is it (a) Charitable, (b) if not, is it otherwise concerned with the advancement of education, (c) is It otherwise concerned with the advancement of social welfare?". Quarter Sessions gave the following answer to these questions:- "We found that the main objects of the College were these set out in Article II (3) (a) and (b) of its Charter. The objects in Article II (B) (a) were admitted to be charitable. We were further of opinion that the object in Article II (B) (b) was either charitable or otherwise concerned with the advancement of social welfare for we were satisfied on the evidence written and oral that the objects in Article II (B) (a) and (b) were mutually complementary in that both were directed to a single end, namely, the raisins of the standard of nursing for the benefit of the community rather than the promotion of the professional Interests of nurses as an end in itself".
It is to be observed in passing that Quarter Sessions did not specifically answer the question whether the main object or objects, If not charitable, was or were mainly concerned with the advancement of education but it is, We think, implicit in the Answers which they did give that they did not think that the question should be answered afirmatively. The supplementary answers given by Quarter Sessions are, perhaps, expressed a little ambiguously and Mr Scarman suggested before us that their finding that the objects in Article II (B) (a) and (b) "were mutually complementary in that both were directed to a single and" was intended to qualify the earlier finding "that the main objects of the College were those set out in Article II (B) (a) and (b) of its Charter".
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v Attorney-General and Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...be benefited in their own practice by the use of those Reports: compare Royal College of Nursing v. St. Marylebone Borough Council [1959] 1 W.L.R. 1077. Romer L.J., at page 1085, says this: It is clear, however, from such cases as the Institution of Civil Engineers v. Inland Revenue Commiss......
-
New Zealand Computer Society Inc.
...1 NZLR 570 at 578; see also Re Mason [1971] NZLR 714 at 722. 19 At 580, citing Royal College of Nursing v St Marylebone Corporation [1959] 3 All ER 663. 20 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Medical Council of New Zealand [1997] 2 NZLR 297 at 21 Institution of Professional Engineers New Zeala......
-
CIV-2010-485-924
...1 NZLR 570 at 578; see also Re Mason [1971] NZLR 714 at 722. At 580, citing Royal College of Nursing v St Marylebone Corporation [1959] 3 All ER 663. Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Medical Council of New Zealand [1997] 2 NZLR 297 at Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc v ......