Rugby Joint Water Board v Shaw-Fox ; Rugby Joint Water Board v Foottit
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Pearson,Lord Hodson,Lord Gardiner,Lord Simon,Lord Cross,Lord Simon of Glaisdale,Lord Cross of Chelsea |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] UKHL J0223-2 |
| Date | 23 February 1972 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1972] UKHL J0223-2
House of Lords
Lord Pearson
Lord Hodson
Lord Gardiner
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Lord Cross of Chelsea
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Rugby Joint Water Board against Foottit and another, Rugby Joint Water Board against Foottit and another [Second Appeal], and Rugby Joint Water Board against Shaw-Fox and others [Consolidated Appeals], that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 29th day of November last, as on Thursday the 2d, Monday the 6th and Tuesday the 7th days of December last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Rugby Joint Water Board, of 50 Albert Street, Rugby, Warwickshire, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Appeal of the Rugby Joint Water Board, of 50 Albert Street, Rugby, Warwickshire, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Appeal of the Rugby Joint Water Board of 50 Albert Street, Rugby, Warwickshire, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; (which said Appeals were, by an Order of this House, of the 25th of January 1971, ordered to be consolidated); as also upon the Case of Edward Hall Foottit and Zoe Ruth Foottit, and Jean Helen Shaw-Fox, Patrick Hare Vivian Twist and Harold Ashworth Sibley, lodged in answer to the said Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That, so far as regards the words "it is Ordered that the said decision of the Lands Tribunal dated the 27th day of November 1969 be affirmed and this Appeal be dismissed", the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 22d day of October 1970 be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that in that respect, the First and Third Petitions and Appeal be, and the same are hereby. Dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That, so far as regards the words "It is Ordered that this appeal be allowed and that the said Decision of the Lands Tribunal dated the 27th day of November 1969 be set aside in this case", and also so far as regards the words "and in lieu thereof it be declared that the Claimants said interest is to be valued as an interest in fee simple in agricultural land subject to an agricultural tenancy in respect of which at the date of the Notice to Treat the Claimants were entitled to give an effective Notice to Quit expiring in not less than 42 days from the date of such Notice", the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 22d day of October 1970 be, and the same is hereby Set Aside: And it is further Ordered, That the Decision of the Lands Tribunal of the 27th day of November 1969 thereby set Aside except as to Costs be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is also further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeals, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
ON APPEAL
FROM HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND)
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF LORDS
THE HUMBLE PETITION AND APPEAL of SURENDRA KUMAR SAKHUJA of 259 Kingsway, Hove, in the County of East Sussex.
WHEREAS the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has, pursuant to Section 33, Sub-Section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968, certified that the decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) hereinafter referred to involves a point of law of general public importance and that it appears that the point is one which ought to be considered by your Lordships House;
AND WHEREAS the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has granted Leave to your Petitioner to prosecute an Appeal from the said decision to your Lordships House.
YOUR PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS that the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule hereto may be reviewed before Her Majesty, the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order may be reversed, varied or altered and that the Petitioner may have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty, the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament may seem meet; And that Robert Allen, a Superintendent of Police of the Sussex Constabulary, mentioned in the Schedule to this Appeal, may be ordered to lodge such a Case as he may be advised and the circumstances of the Cause may require in answer to this Appeal; and that Service of such Order on the solicitors in the cause of the said Respondent may be deemed good service.
ROWE & MAW
of 15 Devereux Court,
Essex Street, London, W.C.2.
London Agents for Messrs. Woolley Bevis & Diplock,
15 Prince Albert Street,
Brighton, BW1 1H7
Agents for the Appellant
THE SCHEDULE above referred to
FROM HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND)
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
IN THE MATTER of certain criminal proceedings wherein Robert Allen, a Superintendent of Police of the Sussex Constabulary, was the Prosecutor and Surendra Kumar Sakhuja was the Defendant.
THE Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal (England) (Criminal Division) dated the 5th day of March, 1971, appealed from is in the words following:
"IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION).
REGINA v. SURENDRA KUMAR SAKHUJA .
UPON CONSIDERATION on 5th March, 1971, by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of the Appeal of the above-named Appellant against conviction of driving a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, the Court:
(1) DISMISSES the Appeal against conviction;
(2) CERTIFIES, upon the Application of Counsel for the Appellant, that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision to dismiss the Appeal, namely:
whether, on the true construction of Section 2, Sub-Section 1 of the Road Safety Act, 1967, in cases—where a suspicion arises with respect to a person driving while his vehicle is in motion, that person, if immediately pursued by a Constable in Uniform, may be required to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, notwithstanding that at the conclusion of the pursuit, he is no longer a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place;
(3) GRANTS Leave to Appeal to the House of Lords;
(4) GRANTS Legal Aid (Solicitors and Junior Counsel) for the purposes of the presentation of the Appeal to the House of Lords
5 March, 1971."
My Lords,
The Appellants acquired certain lands under statutory powers for the purpose of making a reservoir. These lands included parts of farms of which the Respondents were landlords, having fee simple reversions subject to agricultural tenancies from year to year. The present appeals are concerned with preliminary questions of law affecting the assessment of the compensation payable by the Appellants to the respondents. It will be convenient to deal first with the Shaw-Fox appeal, which raises only the two main questions which are common to both appeals. The Foottit case raises, in addition to those two main questions, a further question which is of less importance.
In the Shaw-Fox case the tenancy was according to the tenancy agreement terminable by a twelve months' notice to quit expiring on the 25th March in any year. But prima facie the tenancy, being a tenancy of an agricultural holding, would be protected under section 24, subsection (1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, whereby the notice to quit, if the tenant served a counter-notice, would not have effect unless the Agricultural Land Tribunal consented to its operation. The tenancy would, however, not enjoy this protection—the notice to quit could have effect without the consent of the Tribunal—if the Respondents as landlords could give their notice to quit on the ground referred to in section 24, subsection (2), paragraph ( b) of the Act. The first main question is whether the Respondents were entitled to act under section 24 (2) ( b) at the material time in the circumstances of this case. The Respondents did not in fact serve any notice to quit. The question is whether they had a right to serve one under section 24 (2) ( b). The practical point affecting the compensation is that a reversion to an unprotected tenancy is in this case worth considerably more than a reversion to a protected tenancy.
Section 24 (2) ( b), so far as it is material for the present purpose, provides that "the foregoing subsection shall not apply where … the notice to quit is given on the ground that the land is required for a use, other than for agriculture, for which permission has been granted on an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bodden v NRA
...& C.R. 20; [2003] 1 EGLR 9; [2002] R.V.R. 368; [2002] N.P.C. 125; [2002] EWCA Civ 1430, followed. (8) Rugby Joint Water Bd. v. Foottit, [1973] A.C. 202; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 757; [1972] 1 All E.R. 1057, followed. (9) Work & Pensions Secy. v. Morina, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 3033; [2008] 1 All E.R. 718; [......
-
Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town) et al., 2001 SCC 85
...Indian Band et al. v. Glass et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 633; 261 N.R. 296, refd to. [para. 143]. Rugby Joint Water Board v. Shaw-Fox, [1973] A.C. 202 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1921] 1 A.C. 401 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 162]. R. v. Van der Pee......
-
Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town) et al., 2001 SCC 85
...Indian Band et al. v. Glass et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 633; 261 N.R. 296, refd to. [para. 143]. Rugby Joint Water Board v. Shaw-Fox, [1973] A.C. 202 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1921] 1 A.C. 401 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 162]. R. v. Van der Pee......
-
Transport for London v. Spirerose Ltd., [2009] N.R. Uned. 206 (HL)
...the owner' principle." Lord Pearson made some illuminating remarks to the same effect in Rugby Joint Water Board v. Shaw-Fox [1973] A.C. 202, 213-215, some of which are quoted by Lord Collins. [21] As it happens, the Privy Council's advice to His Majesty in Pointe Gourde was ......