Attorney-General for Ireland (on Behalf of HM), Appellant; and The Corporation of Dublin and The Dublin Country Council, Respondents

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Judge: H. L.
• Judgment Date: 26 March 1918
• Date: 26 March 1918

Attorney-General for Ireland (on behalf of his majesty)

Appellant

and

and the Corporation of Dublin and the Dublin County Council

Respondents (1)

H. L.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1918.

Dublin Police District — Police Rate — Apportionment between county borough and outside area — Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 37), sect. 65, sub-s. 2; sect. 66.

Under the Dublin Police Acts, as amended by the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, sect. 66, sub-ss. 2 and 4, the Commissioner of Police is entitled to raise for the maintenance of the police force an amount not exceeding eightpence in the pound on the annual value of the rateable hereditaments in the police district, which is apportionable between the city of Dublin and the rest of the district according to rateable value.

Sect. 65, sub-s. 2, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, provides that, where part of a union is within and part without any county borough, a revaluation whereof has been made under sub-s. 1 of that section, the total amount to be raised for union charges shall be apportioned between each such part in proportion to the rateable value of each part “at the date when the revaluation under this section came into force.” This enactment is by the sub-section applied to the said police district as if it were a union.

Pursuant to sect. 65, sub-s. 1, of the Act of 1898, a revaluation of the county borough of Dublin was made by which the total valuation of the rateable hereditaments in the borough was largely increased. This revaluation came into force on April 1, 1916.

Held, that the provisions of sect. 65, sub-s. 2, as to apportionment apply to the Dublin Police District in respect of police rate; but held, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal ([1917] 1 I. R. 423), which had affirmed the judgment of O'Connor M. R. (ib., p. 40), that the Commissioner of Police in estimating and apportioning the amount necessary for the maintenance of the police force is bound to have regard to the valuation of the city of Dublin as it existed at and immediately after the date when the last previous general re-valuation of the city under section 65 of the Act of 1898 came into force, subject to the cases mentioned in the proviso to sub-section 2 of that section.

Belfast Guardians v. Belfast Corporation ([1910] 2 I. R. 534), and Rex (Belfast Corporation) v. Belfast Poor Law Guardians ([1917] 2 I. R. 443 n), overruled.

Appeal by the Attorney-General, on behalf of His Majesty, from an order of the Court of Appeal (1), dated the 5th June, 1917, affirming the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, which declared that the Commissioner of Police in Dublin metropolis, in estimating and apportioning the amount necessary for the maintenance of the police force and for the several purposes of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Acts, under sects. 65 and 66 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, was and is bound to have regard to the valuation of the city of Dublin as it existed immediately prior to the date when the last previous revaluation of the city under sect. 65 of the said Act came into force.

Serjeant Sullivan and Pigot K.C. (with them St. L. E. Devitt), for the appellant.

Clancy K.C. and Carrigan K.C. (with them P. A. O'C. White) for the respondents, the Dublin Corporation.

S. L. Brown K.C. and T. Sullivan K.C. (with them W. G. Shannon), for the respondents, the Dublin County Council.

The Lord Chancellor (2):—

My Lords, this appeal raises an important question as to the amount of the contribution to be made by the Dublin police district for the maintenance of the police therein, and its apportionment between the city of Dublin on the one hand and the adjoining portions of the county on the other, which together make up the district.

The force was constituted under the statute 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 29, and provision was made for their maintenance out of the rates by the fourth section of the 7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 25, The whole of the latter section has been repealed, with the exception of the provision that the sums to be raised for the purpose shall not exceed in the whole in any one year 8d. in the £ on the annual value of the houses, lands, and tenements in the district, which provision is still in force. The Act of 1849, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 91, by sect. 30 provided that the justices of the peace for the districts

should annually estimate the amount required for the police in the district, and transmit their certificate to the Collector-General (the official to whom the collection of rates was at that time entrusted), who should applot, levy, and collect the amount, the limitation to in the £ being preserved. By sect 44 of the same Act, which is still in force, it was provided that any such rate should be levied upon buildings and lands equably according to the net annual value thereof “as the same now are or shall from time to time be hereafter valued and rated” for poor law purposes.

The rates were collected under these and other enactments for many years without any friction. The difficulty which has given rise to the present litigation was occasioned by the terms of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, sects. 65 and 66. These sections, so far as material, are in the following terms:—

Sect. 65, sub-s. 1: “A general revaluation of rateable hereditaments under the Valuation Acts may be made, as respects a county borough, on the application of the council, and the council so applying shall pay such portion, not exceeding one-half, of the cost of the revaluation as the Treasury direct, and upon any such general revaluation the land in the borough shall be valued in the manner directed by sect. 11 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, with respect to houses and buildings. Sub-s. 2. Where part of a union is within and part without any county borough in respect of which a revaluation is made under this section, the total amount to be raised for union charges in that union shall be apportioned between each such part of the union in. proportion to the rateable value of each part at the date when the revaluation under this section came into force. Provided that after the expiration of five years from that date, if no general revision has meantime been made, the Commissioner of Valuation, if satisfied by the council of the borough or the guardians representing the electoral divisions of the union situated outside the borough, or a majority of them, that the apportionment has become inequitable by reason of subsequent changes in the value of any hereditaments in the union, may revise the proportion in which the union charges are to be apportioned. This enactment shall apply to the police district of Dublin metropolis and to the Dublin bridge area within the meaning of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and Bridges Act, 1876, as if it were a union, but with the substitution of the county council of the county of Dublin, with respect to the revision of the apportionment for the said guardians.”

Sect. 66, sub-s. 2. “The Commissioner of Police of Dublin Metropolis under the Dublin Metropolis Police Acts shall, at the prescribed time before the beginning of every local financial year, estimate the amount of money which he finds necessary for the maintenance of the police force, and for the several purposes of the said Acts during that year, not exceeding the amount which the Commissioner is, under the said Acts, or any of them, entitled to raise by a rate thereunder. Sub-s. 3. The Dublin Port and Docks Board shall at the prescribed time before the beginning of every local financial year estimate the amount of money which they require to be raised in that year for the purpose of the bridge tax (if any) and bridge rate respectively. Sub-s. 4. The Commissioner and Board respectively shall apportion each amount so estimated between the city of Dublin and the rest of the police district of Dublin metropolis or of the bridge area (as the case may be) which is outside the city of Dublin, and shall so apportion according to rateable value; and shall send to the council for the city of Dublin a demand for the amount apportioned to that city and to the council of the county of Dublin a demand for the amount apportioned to the rest of the police district or bridge area; and each council shall pay by equal half-yearly payments the amount specified in such demand less 5 per cent., as and for the cost of collection and irrecoverable rates and office expenses, and also such less sum (if any) as the Local Government Board certify in each half year to be the proportion of the Collector-General's annuity hereinafter mentioned properly chargeable against any such payment. Sub-s. 5. The council of the city of Dublin shall raise, either by means of a separate rate or by means of the poor rate, but as a separate item thereof, a sum equal to the amounts specified in such demand, but the demand note shall specify approximately the amount in the pound required for each amount.”

The Dublin Corporation made application under sect. 65, sub-s. 1, of the Local Government Act for a revaluation. That revaluation was made with the result that the valuation of the city of Dublin was largely increased. It may be observed that such an increase has invariably followed revaluation under sect. 65, sub-s. 1, owing to the direction at the end of that sub-section that upon any such general revaluation the land in the borough shall be valued as directed by sect. 11 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, with respect to houses and buildings. This revaluation came into force on the 1st April, 1916.

On the 7th March, 1917, the Chief Commissioner of Police served on the respondents an estimate of the amount of police tax required for the financial year, 1st April, 1917, to 31st March, 1918. The amount required was £54,956 15s. 4d., of...