Wootton v Central Land Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 1957 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1957] EWCA Civ J0115-1 |
| Date | 15 January 1957 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1957] EWCA Civ J0115-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(On Appeal from the Lands Tribunal)
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Evershed),
Lord Justice Denning and
Lord Justice Romer
Mr. R. D. STEWART-BROWN (instructed Messrs. W.H. Chitty & Fryzer) appeared on behalf" of the Appellant.
Mr. ERIC SLAIN (instucted by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
: This appeal upon a Case Stated by the Lands Tribunal is unusual since the question raised as a question of law for this Court relates exclusively to the matter of costs. The short facts leading up to the Case Stated are these: the Appellant, Mr Wootton, owns and at all relevant dates owned a substantial area of land not very far from Tattenham Corner on Epsom Downs, and it appears that in the year 1948 he obtained a planning consent for the development of this piece of land as a garden city. The project for such development is associated with the name of a planning expert, a Mr. Zaidel, and I refer to his name because in the course of the case the method of valuation put forward on Mr Wootton's behalf was also associated with Mr. Zaidel's name.
The matter first came before the Central Land Board for the ascertainment of the development value of this piece of land for the purposes of section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It will be borne in mind that the scheme of that Act has since been superseded. But it remains necessary in such a case, at any rate, as the present, that the development value of the land should be ascertained, since that value when ascertained is, to put it no higher, relevant upon any future refusal of planning authority for Mr Wootton or upon the compulsory acqusition of any part of his land.
The claim for development value which Mr Wootton put forward throughout the proceedings was a claim not far short of a quarter of a million pounds. The Central Land Board which determined the development value pursuant to the 1947 Act and the 1948 Rules made thereunder, assessed the development value at a very much less figure, namely, £44,500. But Mr Wootton was dissatisfied with that assessment, and accordingly, in pursuance of his statutory right so to do, he became an Applicant before the Lands Tribunal for the determination by that Tribunal of the true figure. I shall come back presently to make some references to the statutory provisions to which I have very briefly alluded, but, to complete the first narrative, the Lands Tribunal was of opinion that the true development value of the land lay somewhere between the two figures, the quarter of a million or thereabouts propounded by Mr Wootton and the £44,500 determined by the Central Land Board. The Lands Tribunal assessed the value at £102,500, and, as a matter of arithmetic, it appears that that figure represents a reduction by 53 per cent, of the figure for which Mr Wootton had contende.
The judgment giving that conclusion (which is dated the 6th Febuary, 1956) concluded with the tight words: "There will be no Order as to costs". Thereupon Mr Wootton requested that a Case should be stated for this Court upon that last matter. Before I refer to the Case Seated, I will go back to make my references to the statutes and the relevant rules, I need not take time by referring, except very briefly, to the regulations made under section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act,"1947; it suffices to say that under that Act and the rules, cases in which a party, a claimant, is dissatisfied with the determination of the Central Land Board were to be taken to the arbitrament of an arbitrator. But regulation 13 of the 1948 rules is perhaps worth some reference. By the first sub-paragraph of the paragraph it is provided that if (inter alia) the claimant disputes the development value as determined by the Board, then the dispute shall be referred to and settled by an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, Sub-paragraph(4) states that the arbitrator shall by his award either conform the development value as determined by the Board under paragraph 5 of the previous regulation, or direct the Board to alter the development value, and so on. There is finally in sub-paragraph (7) a provision saying that it is competent for the Claimant and – the Board to agree a figure at any time before final determination by the arbitrator. Those provisions were substantially altered or superseded as a matter of procedure by the Lands Tribunal Act of 1949 and the rules made thereunder; but I have referred to the paragraphs and particularly to sub-paragraph 4 because they indicate that the nature of the proceedings where a claimant disputes a development value fixed by the Land Board may fairly, I think, bo described, as Mr Stewart-Brown described it, as an "appeal" to another body having the right, as pointed out in the paragraph, either of affirming the development value or of altering it.
I come now to the Act of 1949. Section I of that Act constituted the Lands Tribunal, and provided, by sub-section (3) (d) of the same first section, that there should be referred to and determied by the Lands Tribunal "any dispute arising in relation to the determination of the development values of interests in land by the Central Land Board or other authority prescribed under section sixty of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947". "I pass to section 3, which deals with procedure, appeals, costs and the like. Subsection (4) of that section is as follows: "A decision of the Lands Tribunal shall be final: Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision as being erroneous in point of law may, within such time as may be limited by rules of court, require the tribunal to state and sign a case for the decision of the court and, where the decision of the Lands Tribunal is given on a review by way of appeal of the previous decision of another person, that person if dissatisfied with the decision of the lands Tribunal shall be treated for this purpose as a person aggrieved thereby". It was under the terms of that proviso that the Case Started on this matter of costs was put forward, and it is, of course, essential to the Appellant's case that the point which arises should be a point which arises should be a point of Law. The Appellant must satisfy us that the decision as to costs which I have already stated, was erroneous in point of law.
I return to the section to read subsection (5): "Subject to the following provisions of this section" – and I need not refer to them because they are not for present purposes relevant- "the Lands Tribunal may order that the costs of any proceedings before it incurred by any party shall be paid by any other party and may tax or settle the amount of any costs to be paid" &c. Subsection (6): "Subject to the provisions of this Act, rules may be made for regulating proceedings before the Lands Tribunal and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, the fees chargeable in respect of those proceedings, and may in particular – (a) make provision – (i) as to the form in which any decision of the Tribunal is to be given, and as to" its amendment, "(ii) as to the time within which any proceedings before the Tribunal are to be instituted; (iii) as to the evidence which may be required or admitted in any such proceedings". Nothing else in subsection (6) is relevant.
It was under the powers of subection (6) that the rules known as the Lands Tribunal Rules of 1949 were promulgated. Paragraph 42 provides, under the heading "Costs": "Except in cases to which the provisions of subsections (1), ( 2) or (3) of section 5 of the Act of 1919 apply" – and they do not here affect us "the costs of and incidental to any proceading shall be in the discretion of the Tribunal"; and. it then provides that in certain cases costs are to be paid by means of the affixing of stamps on documents, Paragraph 52 is in these terms: "The fees specified in the Third Schedule to thene Rules shall be payable to the Registrar by means of stamps. The hearing fee shall, unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal, be payable by the appellant or party by whom the proceedings were instituted, without prejudice to his right to recover the amount of the fee from any other party by virtue of any Order as to costs, on receipt of notification from the Registrar", The Third Schedule contains a list of fees. Some of them are of a relatively trifling character; for example, on a notice of appeal against a determination, a fee payable by means of an impressed stamp of 20/-, But the hearing fees in cases of this sort are indeed heavy. In the present case, since the hearing fee depends upon the amount of the award, the renrinr fee is in the region of £500; and, ae will be apparent from the Rule I have read, the Rulenaker intended that the nearing fee should he paid by the applicant or the claimant – in this case b the appellant – without prejudice to any Order which the Lands Tribunal might make in regard to it.
I have taken a little tine making reference to these Rules for this reason: the effect of the simple Order "No costs either side" was, quoad the hearing fee, that the hole of it was paid by the appellant, Mr "Wootton. I have felt, I confess, a little doubt in my mind whether really the Lane's Tribunal so intended. After all, this was not like the stamp duty on a document: it was a fee substantially payable for the services of the Tribunal, and we were informed that the fixin of fees on the scale on which they have been fixed was with the no doubt laudable object of making the Lands...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Burnett v Customs and Excise Comptroller and Another
-
Michalak v General Medical Council and Others
...present purposes, I think that this is the essence of what is meant by 'proceedings in the nature of an appeal'. I note that in Wootton v Central Land Board [1957] 1 WLR 424 Lord Evershed MR had to consider whether an application to the Lands Tribunal by a party who was dissatisfied with t......
-
Goldstein v Conley
...invoked by the landlord`s first (unsuccessful) application to the County Court could not be used. 111 In Wootton v. Central Land Board [1957]1 WLR 424 a costs order made by the Lands Tribunal was set aside by the Court of Appeal (Lord Evershed MR, Denning and Romer LJJ), and the Court with ......
-
Maxim Alexander Bishop v Transport for London
...a sealed offer of £151,000. In the light of the decision of the Court of Session in Emslie & Simpson and the Court of Appeal's in Wootton v Central Land Board [1957] 1 All E.R. 441, the Tribunal concluded that it was “entirely consistent with principle … to award to the authority costs unn......