Toogood & Sons v Green
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Thankerton |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1932 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1932] UKHL J0513-1 |
| Date | 13 May 1932 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1932] UKHL J0513-1
House of Lords
Viscount Dunedin.
Lord Warrington of Clyffe.
Lord Atkin.
Lord Thankerton.
Lord Macmillan.
After hearing Counsel, as well on Friday the 19th, Monday the 22d, and Tuesday the 23d, days of February last, as on Thursday, the 10th day of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Toogood and Sons, Limited, whose registered office is situate at Blighmont Park, Millbrook, Southampton, in the County of Hampshire, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 10th of June 1931, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Arthur Edward Green, the Revenue Officer for the Southampton County Borough Assessment Area, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; 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 His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 10th day of June 1931, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed, and that the Order of the King's Bench Division, of the 5th day of May 1931, thereby set aside be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondent do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellants the Costs incurred by them in the Court of Appeal, and also the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal to this House, the amount of such last-mentioned Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
My Lords,
The Appellants are owners and occupiers of a hereditament situate at Blighmont Park, Millbrook, near Southampton, which is described in the Valuation List as a seed warehouse, offices, canteen and outbuildings. The Respondent is the Revenue Officer for the Southampton County Borough Assessment Area.
The question in this appeal is whether the hereditament is an industrial hereditament within the meaning of section 3, sub-section 1, of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. The Assessment Committee determined that it was not, but, on appeal by Special Case under the Quarter Sessions Act, 1849, a Divisional Court of the King's Bench reversed that decision; on appeal from the latter decision, the Court of Appeal restored the decision of the Assessment Committee.
The premises in question are registered as a factory and workshop under the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 to 1920, and therefore fall to be classed as an industrial hereditament, unless they are excluded by the proviso to section 3 (1) of the Act of 1928.
The Crown maintained that the hereditament is so excluded in respect that it is "primarily occupied and used for …. the purposes of a retail shop." Under section 3 (4) "Retail shop includes any premises of a similar character where retail trade or business (including repair work) is carried on"
The premises comprise the following buildings:—
Warehouse No. 1.—An extensive modern warehouse, consisting of seven floors with an aggregate floor area of 66,971 square feet,
A smaller warehouse, consisting of two floors with an aggregate floor area of 3,588 square feet,
A block of administrative offices, consisting of two floors and a store room in the roof with a total floor area of 8,894 square feet, and
A wooden hut, with a total floor area of 2,400 square feet.
The nature of the use and occupation of the premises is described in the special case as follows:—
"The block of offices is used for the purpose of offices and the smaller warehouse is used for packeting seeds, and the wooden hut is used as a recreation room for the staff. It is conceded by the Appellants (Toogood & Sons Ltd.) that these buildings, comprising a floor area of 14,882 square feet, are occupied and used for purposes other than industrial purposes. As to warehouse No. 1, the work carried on in this building chiefly consists of cleaning, testing, analysing and sorting seeds of two categories, namely ( a) vegetable and farm seeds and ( b) flower seeds. The former category represents not less than 90 per cent. of the Appellants' turnover in bulk. There is no warehousing as an end in itself in this building, the Appellants having other property in Southampton which is used for that purpose."
A detailed description of the purposes for which the seven floors of Warehouse No. 1 are used shows that the roof floor is used as a testing station and that the fourth, third and second floors are given up to seed-cleaning machinery; as regards the remaining floors, the special case states "On the first floor a hand machine is installed and used for cleaning small seeds and apart from that the remaining floor area is utilised for packeting seeds. Apart from 1,500 square feet which is used for hand picking of peas by machines the whole of the ground floor is used for the storage of chattels which are offered for sale by the Appellants (Toogood & Sons Ltd.) and seeds awaiting despatch. The basement is used for mixing fertilisers and for hand picking and grading potatoes. In addition seeds which are rejected for other purposes are ground down and converted into poultry and bird food." The case further states "With the exception of a negligible quantity all seeds which come to the said hereditament are in a rough, unclean and impure state. All seeds, are submitted to one or other of the treatments hereinafter mentioned or to some similar treatment and such treatment is a necessary preliminary to the sale of the seed in order to comply with the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. 5 Ch. 54) or the standard required by the market in which the Appellants trade. About 90 per cent. of the seed is within the provisions of the said Act and the Statutory Rules and Orders made thereunder." A detailed description of the methods of treatment is given, which it is unnecessary to recapitulate.
As regards the methods of disposal of their goods by the Appellants, who are described as carrying on "the business of retail seedsmen" the case states that "All the seeds above referred to are sold to customers other than the trade. A small quantity is sent to a retail shop occupied by the Appellants in Southampton. As to the remainder, orders are received by the Appellants at their aforesaid office, and it is despatched direct to their customers from the said warehouse in fulfilment of such orders." Further, "The aforesaid treatments are carried on as an integral part of the Appellants' business of seedsmen The Appellants do not apply the said treatments or any of them to seeds belonging to third parties. The average quantity of packeted seeds dealt with by the Appellants at the said hereditament over a period of the last three years amounts to 46 tons per annum and the average quantity of seeds of all descriptions other than packeted seeds dealt with by the Appellants at the said hereditament over the same period amounts to 1,836 tons per annum."
It was not disputed by the Crown that, in view of the decision of this House in Hines v. Eastern Counties Farmers' Co-operative Association Ltd., (1931) A.C. 446, the cleaning and sorting of seeds in the present case, taken by itself, was a factory purpose, but they maintained that, looking at the other uses and occupation of the hereditament and the methods of disposal of goods carried on there, the hereditament was primarily used and occupied for the purposes of a retail shop...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Almond v Heathfield Laundry (Birmingham) Ltd
...based on the later decision -that is later than Wilkinson v. Sibley - of the House of Lords in Toogood's case. That is reported in 1932 Appeal Cases, p. 663. It related to a business, admittedly a retail business, of selling seeds which had to be prepared in various ways before sale. From ......
-
Dolton Bournes & Dolton Ltd v Osmond
... ... Thankerton himself did in the House of Lords in the later case in 1932 we are known as Toogood's case. In any event,/fortunately not concerned here with the sale of articles of foodstuffs to ... ...
-
Frawley (M. & F.) Ltd v Ve-Ri-Best Company Ltd
...That, I think, is a valid distinction in considering the word "retail" and it is supported by Lord Thankerton in the case of Toogood & Sons, Ltd v. Green, reported in 1932 Appeal Cases, 674, when he himself quoted a speech of Lord Dunedin in a previous case called Turpins case reported in 1......
-
Boyd v Bell
...1 K. B. 693. 10 (6th ed.) pp. 213–4. 11 (1883) 8 App. Cas. 798, at p. 801. 12 (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 280, at p. 291. 13 1965, cap. 35. 14 [1932] A. C. 663. 15 Assessor for Aberdeen v. Lumsden's HeirsSC, 1932 S. C. 379, Lord Sands at p. 381. 16 [1931] A. C. 446, 451, at p. 474. Reference was a......