Royal Cross School for the Deaf v Morton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CAIRNS,LORD JUSTICE LAWTON,MR JUSTICE MacKENNA |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0221-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 21 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | LVC/26/1972 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0221-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The Lands Tribunal
Lord Justice Cairns
Lord Justice Lawton (not present)
Mr Justice Mackenna
MR M. HORTON (instructed by Messrs Sharpe Pritchard & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Second Respondents).
MR A. P. FLETCHER (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
MR G. R. ROOTS (For Mr. G. BARTLETT) (instructed by Messrs Cotman & Jameson appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent (Appellants).
This is an appeal from the Lands Tribunal in a rating case. The Ratepayers are the owners of the Royal Cross School for the Deaf at Preston, Lancashire. In 1963 that hereditament stood in the Valuation List at a gross value of £2,600 and rateable value £2,138. The Ratepayers made a proposal for substantial reduction of these values under Section 9(1) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1955, which provided inter alia for relief from rating in respect of certain structures supplied for the welfare of the deaf. That section was in the same terms as Section 45 of the General Rate Act, 1967 and it is convenient to treat the proposal as if made under the later Act.
The Valuation Officer and the Preston Borough Council as Rating Authority objected to the proposal. The local Valuation Committee rejected the proposal and upheld the valuation. The Ratepayers appealed to the Lands Tribunal. At that stage the Valuation Officer supported the appeal. It was allowed and the valuation was reduced to £260 gross and £194 rateable. The Rating Authority appeals to this Court. The Ratepayers and the Valuation Officer have both appeared by counsel to resist the appeal. The issue is one of principle: it is common ground that if the appeal succeeds the value originally included in the Valuation List should stand. The relevant provisions of the Act of 1967 are as follows: Section 45: "In ascertaining for the purposes of section 19 of this Act the gross value of a hereditament, no account shall be taken", and then (c) "of any structure belonging to a local authority within the meaning of section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (which relates to welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and other handicapped persons) or to such a voluntary organisation as is mentionin section 30 of that Act and supplied for the use of any person in pursuance of arrangements made under the said section 29; or (d) of any structure which is of a kind similar to structures such as are referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section but does not fall within that paragraph by reason that it is owned or has been supplied otherwise than as mentioned in that paragraph".
The relevant provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1948 are as follows:
Sub-section (1): "A local authority shall have power to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons to whom this section applies, that is to say persons who are blind, deaf or dumb, and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the minister".
Sub-section (4) "Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, arrangements may be made there under (a) for informing persons to whom arrangements under that sub-section relate of the services available for them there under: (b) for giving such persons instruction in their own homes or elsewhere in methods of overcoming the effects of their disabilities", and then (f) "For providing such persons with recreational facilities in their own homes or elsewhere".
The Ratepayers' contention, which was accepted by the Lands Tribunal, was that the school buildings were a structure such as could have been provided by a Local Authority under Section 29 of the Act of 1948 and consequently the occupiers were entitled to relief under paragraph (d) of Section 45 ofthe Act of 1967.
The Rating Authority's contention was that the provision of a school for the deaf was an educational and not a welfare function and therefore could only be provided under the Education Acts and not under Section 29 of the Act of 1948, so that no relief could be given under section 45 of the Act of 1967.
Both the Ratepayers and the Rating Authority accepted that the test was whether a Local Authority could have made such provision under Section 29 and not whether any Local Authority had done so or would do so. The Valuation Officer on the other hand submitted that, even if it were established that a Local Authority could do so, it was necessary before relief could be given to prove either that some Local Authority had done so or that a Local Authority would do so. (For brevity I omit reference to Voluntary Organisations: they raise no separate problem). The Valuation Officer, however, contended that a Local Authority both could and would provide a school for the deaf under Section 29 because such a school would have an important welfare aspect in addition to its educational aspect.
The Royal Cross School is housed in a number of buildings, containing classrooms, hostels, assembly hall, offices, headmaster's house etc. It stands on a site of 8.8 acres on which there are playing fields and a tennis court. At the date of the proposal there were 82 pupils, all boarders, a teaching staff of 11 and a matron and supporting staff. The school is held under a trust for "the instruction of the deaf and dumb children of North and East Lancashire in language, religion and general knowledge and the elements of useful industries". The School is not maintained by the Local Authority.
Mr Gaskell, the principal of the School, gave evidencethat it was started in 1894, While he was principal consultation as to the admission of pupils took place with the Local Authorities in Lancashire and adjoining counties but the final decision was his own. He catered for the worst handicapped - the quite deaf or pre-lingual deaf. Special care was needed for these both in and out of school. Many bad other serious disabilities e.g. some were spastics or epilepts. Deafness was the worst thing because it prevented communication. Some 50 percent, of the children were of low intelligence or dull. Some of the staff had child care certificates, for the staff had many duties besides teaching. In the classrooms, with children aged 9 to 16, it was probable that some training in lip-reading would already have been given. The teachers tried as far as possible to follow an ordinary curriculum. Out of school there was horse-riding, swimming etc. The "house parents" had quite difficult problems, e.g. with enuresis and the difficulties of spastics. The whole child had to be helped. Mr Gaskell had to keep some children through the holidays, though he tried to avoid it. His equipment and staff were better than a Local Education Committee could provide. There were social activities beyond the ordinary meaning of education. There was social need in terms of welfare which was partly met by such things as swimming every day, induction loops and television sets. The school was registered under Section 70 of the Education Act as an independent school. It was not registered under the National Assistance Act. Mr Gaskell said that he observed the regulations under the Education Acts as far as he could but in a flexible manner.
We have recently given judgment in the case of Vandyk v. Thomas which, like the present case, raised questions as to theinterpretation of Section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967. In that case we followed authorities which establish that a "structure" within the Section may be a structure of any type or size, that "supplied" means "provided" and that "similar" means "similar in purpose or adaptability". No issue was raised either in the Vandyk case or in this one about these constructions.
In the Vandyk case, on the issue as to whether relief was available for any structure of a kind which a Local Authority could supply under the section or only for one which a Local Authority had supplied or would supply, we formed the opinion that the former was the right test. That ruling must apply to this case.
What we have to decide, then, is whether a Local Authority could under the powers of Section 29 of the Act of 1948 provide a school for the deaf such as the Royal Cross School. It could do so if, and only if, the word "welfare" in that section can be construed widely enough to cover the setting up of such an institution.
Now in the widest sense of the word "welfare" there could be no doubt that the whole purpose of this School is to promote the welfare of the pupils. That, I suppose, might be said of any school which is not run for profit, and more particularly of a school for deaf children which has such staff, equipment and methods as described by Mr. Gaskell, going far beyond what is included in the case of an ordinary curriculum. But many schools provide boarding facilities, many schools are devoted to the education of children with special needs, which inevitably involves providing something not covered by an ordinary education, and the problem is whether Parliament can have intended theword "welfare" in a wide enough way to cover a school like this, having regard to the extensive provision made for education in the Education Acts.
Section 8(1) of the Education Act 1944 lays upon a Local Authority the duty of providing schools "to afford to all pupil opportunities for education affording such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes"...
To continue reading
Request your trial