Woollett v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J1109-1 |
| Date | 09 November 1954 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1954] EWCA Civ J1109-1
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Denning
Lord Justice Jenking and
Lord Justice Morris
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, Q.C., M.P.) and Mr. B. S. WINGATE-SAUL (instructed by Mr. A.R. Astley Weston, C.B.E., Legal Department, Ministry of Agriculture ' Fisheries) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
MR. A.P, MARSHALL, Q.C., and MR. GILBERT DARE (instructed by Mr. Lucien Flor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
At Woodham Ferrers in Essex before the war there were two building estates which had been laid out in building plots but had not been developed. Much of the land was unused in 1939 when the war broke out and it was essential to turn it to productive use. So the Minister of Agriculture on 1st July, 1941, requisitioned it. In all he requisitioned 217 acres, much of it being in small plots owned by different owners. He told the owners that possession could be retained by him (the Minister) for the duration of the war and three years after-wards. One of the owners was a Mrs. Norss, who owned a bungalow called "Claremont" and a plot of nearly 4 acres next to it. The Minister took possession of the 4 acres and paid a small annual sum for it. In June, 1947, whilst the land was still under requisition Mrs. Woollett bought the bungalow, together with the 4 acres. Her idea was that she and her husband would work up a small-holding. They went into occupation of the bungalow but they could not at that time take possession of the 4 acres as it was still under requisition.
On the 2nd September, 1949, the Minister told all the owners that, as a matter of general principle, it had been decided by the Minister that requisitioned land would be released as soon as possible after Michaelmas, 1950. but in the case of Woolletts the Minister did release some of the land earlier.
On the 11th October, 1949, the Minister released to them 1 acre of their land and told them that the remainder (3 acres) would probably be relinquished in December, 1950. The Woolletts thereupon set to work getting ready for the tine when they got their 3 acres handed over to them. They bought a rotary hoe and various other implements, built an agricultural store and cultivator shed, laid a roadway, and so forth. But six months later the Minister changed hismind about releasing the land to the various owners. On the 16th June, 1950, he put a public notice in the local paper saving he proposed to retain it: and on 15th July, 1950, he sent a statutory notice to the Woolletts, among others, saying that he proposed to give a certificate with a view to acquiring their land by compulsory purchase but giving them an opportunity of making representations on the matter. On the 25th July, 1950, the Woolletts and others made written representations objecting to the compulsory purchase of their land, and followed it up by verbal representations at a hearing before the Provincial Land Commissioner.
The Minister decided, however, to proceed with the purchase. On the 15th June, 1951, he gave another statutory notice saying that, having considered the representations made by the Woolletts, he now proposed to give the Statutory Certificate, but he notified them that they could appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
The Woolletts promptly gave notice of appeal. So did several other owners. In all 25 owners of plots appealed. The appeals came on for hearing at Chelmsford on the 24th September, 1951, before a Tribunal composed of Sir Cecil Oakes, Mr. Elliott and Mr. Soper. The hearing lasted a full day. The Tribunal inspected the property on the 6th October, 1951, and on the 12th October, 1951i issued their decision.
In the result, out of the 25 appeals, six were allowed, and in those cases the land was returned to the owners: but 19 appeals were dismissed. Mrs, Woollett was one of those who had their appeals dismissed. The Tribunal decided that the statutory conditions had been fulfilled and confirmed the proposal of the Minister, but they gave no reasons for their decision. They made a bald report confirming the Minister's proposal.
A year later, on the 30th September, 1952, the Minister gave the Statutory Certificate by which he certified that he was "satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of enabling him to secure or maintain the full and efficient use for agriculture of the said land that possession of the said land should be retained by him or on his behalf. By virtue of this Certificate, under Section 85(2) of the Act, the Minister was empowered to purchase the land compulsorily.
On the 4th October, 1952, the Minister duly gave notice to Mrs. Wocllett that he had issued his certificate, but he did not take any action on it for a long time. We were told that in some cases he has released land even after issuing a Certificate: but he did not release the 3 acres belonging to the Woolletts. The Minister let another year slip by until on the 15th October, 195 3, he served notice to treat on Mrs. Woollett. Thereupon Mrs. Woollett, on the 4th November. 1953, asked to see the report which the Tribunal made to the Minister. It is a report which, by statute, Mrs. Woollett was entitled to see: but, as it turned out, it told her nothing; no reasons to justify the decision to take her land; just a bare confirmation of the Minister's proposal, and nothing else.
A little later, on the 11th November, 1953, Mrs. Woollett' solicitors issued a writ claiming that the Certificate was void and of no effect, and also that the Notice to Treat was likewise void.
What I desire to emphasise at the outset is that this Court has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the Minister's action. These humble folks, the Woolletts, had bought this small piece of land (it was only 3 acres) intending to work up a small-holding on which to live. It does seem strange that a Government Department should compulsorily take it from them when they were ready andanxious themselves to put it to food production. All the more so when it is remembered that the Government Department had led then to believe that the land would be released to them, and they had expended much money on the faith of it There may be good reasons for the proposal of the Minister and for the decision of the Tribunal confirming it; but I must say that it is a pity that the Tribunal gave no reasons. It may be that the Tribunal were not bound to give reasons, though I am not so sure about this. The Statute gives Mrs. Woollett a right to see their report, and what is the point of her seeing it if it tells her nothing when she gets it. Be that as it may, if they had given reasons, they might have done something to remove the sense of grievance which the Woollatts must inevitably feel, and to allay the Disquiet which must disturb the public conscience because of what has happened.
Moreover, if they had given reasons, these Courts could have inquired into their validity in point or law: but as it is, with no reasons given, no such inquiry is permissible. This Court is precluded from considering the case on its merits. It has rerforce only to consider it on technical grounds; for the only points which Counsel have been able to raise against these proceedings are, I fear, technicalities. I do say they are trivial, only that they are technical.
Let me explain what they are. First, it is said that the Tribunal was not validly constituted, because two of the people who sat on it had never been appointed to it at all. Under the 9th Schedule of the 1947 Act, an Agricultural Land Tribunal must consist of a Chairman to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and two other members to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Both the Lord Chancellor and the Minister are, however, limited in their choice of men. The Lord Chancellor must appoint as Chairman a barrister orsolicitor of not less than seven years standing. The Minister must appoint one member from a panel nominated by the Central Landowners Association and the other member from a panel nominated by the National Farmers Union.
The three men who sat on the Tribunal did, in fact, have the necessary qualifications. The Chairman, Sir Cecil Oakes, was a solicitor of more than seven years standing, Mr. C.P. Elliott was one of the panel nominated by the Central Landowners Association. Mr. W.J. Soper was one of the panel nominated by the National Farmers Union, No one suggests that they were not suitable and proper men to sit on the Tribunal, but it is said that the two dominated members were never appointed by the Minister himself, but only by the Chairman or the Secretary of the Tribunal.
It happened in this ways There was in the Ministry of Agriculture a civil servant named Mr. Comins, who hold the position of land service assistant in the office of the Provincial Land Commissioner at Cambridge. In addition to his work as land service assistant, he was in 1950 attached to the Agricultural Land Tribunal in the capacity of Secretary of the Tribunal, This appointment did not carry any additional salary. It was just part of his work additional to his other duties. He did his work as Secretary in the same office as he did his work as a servant of the Ministry.
When he took over the work, his predecessor (Mr. Smithies) handed him two lists of names constituting the panels from which the nominated members were to be chosen: and he carried on the same procedure as Mr. Smithies, The procedure was this: when a case was to be heard, he selected two names, one from each panel, and telephoned to see if they could manage to sit on a particular date, and when he found two who could, he wrote confirming the arrangement. He did not, as a rule, consult the Chairman before selecting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pattenden v Commissioner of Taxation
-
Pattenden v Commissioner of Taxation
...2 Qd R 334 not followed Winter v Commissioner of Taxation (1985) 16 ATR 977 applied Woollett v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries [1955] 1 QB 103 considered RON PATTENDEN v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION QUD121 OF 2008 LOGAN J 24 OCTOBER 2008 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLA......
-
Asia Development Pte Ltd v Attorney-General
...was made by the Minister. Denning LJ (as he then was) flagged a similar point in Woollett v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries [1955] 1 QB 103 (“Woollett”) at 120. The Act in question in that case did not require any formalities for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to appoint me......
-
Canadian Pittsburgh Industries v. Industrial Relations Board and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Workers, Local 725, (1977) 5 A.R. 407 (TD)
...Ltd. v. Alberta Assessment Appeal Board, [1976] 5 W.W.R. 496, appld. [para. 15]. Woolett v. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, [1955] 1 Q.B. 103; [1954] 3 W.L.R. 776; 3 All E.R. 529, refd to. [para. Uncle Ben's Tartan Breweries of Alberta Ltd. v. Board of Industrial Relations, [1974] 4 ......
-
DELEGATION OF POWERS FOR MODERN GOVERNMENT
...at para 1. 38 Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560 at 563. 39 See Woollett v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries [1955] 1 QB 103 at 120, where Denning LJ held that the words “I am directed by the Minister” and so forth were “magic words” to show that a devolvee was ex......