In Cork Corporation v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 31 January 1916
• Date: 31 January 1916
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

The Corporation of Cork

and

The Commissioner of Valuation (1).

K. B. Div.

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1916.

Rates — Poor Rate — Exemption — Hereditaments of a “Public Nature” “Used for Public Purposes” — Hereditaments used for Municipal Purposes — Hall erected and maintained at expense of Borough Fund — Baths and Wash-houses erected under provisions of Baths and Wash-houses Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 87) — Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), s. 63 — Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 63), s. 16. — Valuation (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 8), s. 2.

Hereditaments used for municipal purposes merely are not hereditaments of a public nature within the meaning of the Valuation (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1854, so as to be exempt from assessment for poor rate.

The Corporation of Cork had erected a hall which was maintained at the expense of the borough fund. The use of the hall was given for public meetings at a nominal charge, and for concerts, &c., for which a charge was made, but no profit was made out of the lettings. The hall was also sometimes used for meetings of the county borough.

The Corporation of Cork had also erected swimming-baths under the provisions of the Baths and Wash-houses Act, 1846. The baths were maintained at the expense of the borough fund, and all receipts from them were paid into the borough fund. The expenditure exceeded the receipts. No member of the public could as of right use the baths, but any member of the public who

complied with the bye-laws was permitted to use the baths no matter where he resided.

Held, by the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the King's Bench Division, that the hall and the baths were not hereditaments of a public nature and used for public purposes so as to be exempt from poor rate.

Cases Stated by the Recorder of Cork, under section 10 of the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860.

The first case came before the Recorder by way of appeal under section 22 of the General Valuation Act, 1852, against the valuation of £100 placed upon premises the property of the corporation of Cork, known as No. 1 Albert Quay, in the county borough of Cork. The appeal was brought upon the grounds—(1) That the valuation was ultra vires; (2) that the premises were exempt from taxation; (3) that even if they were liable to taxation, the valuation was excessive; (4) that the premises were used exclusively for public purposes. The facts proved or admitted were as follows:—

By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108 provision was made for the creation of a borough fund for the city of Cork, and for the application of that fund, inter alia, towards the expense of providing and maintaining corporate buildings in the city. By the Municipal Corporations Act, 1860, power was given to mortgage corporate property with the consent of the Local Government Board for Ireland. In the year 1889 the trustees of the Cornmarket in the borough of Cork, having found themselves in debt, obtained a private Act of Parliament enabling them to transfer their buildings and premises to the Corporation, and empowering the latter to erect municipal offices thereon. Municipal offices were erected on the premises so acquired, but it was found that the new buildings were not adequate to provide for large public meetings, political demonstrations, and gatherings for philanthropic purposes. The Corporation got as a present from the Cork Exhibition Committee an organ. The question of housing that organ having arisen, it was decided in or about the year 1904 to erect a hall so that the organ might be placed therein, and that there might be a place for public meetings, entertainments, &c., in the city. The plan and specification were prepared, and the expense of the works was estimated at £5,500. On February 24th, 1905, the Local Government Board consented to money being raised and applied for the erection of the hall. The expense of the erection of the building was defrayed by money raised by the issue of 3¹/₂ per cent. debenture stock of the borough charged upon all corporate property and rates; the interest thereon was paid out of the borough fund, and there was a sinking fund which would in due course extinguish the principal. The total expense of erecting and furnishing the hall was £6,710. The hall was maintained at the expense of the borough fund. The use of the hall was given free of charge for all public meetings of every kind, and a nominal charge of six shillings per meeting was made to cover lighting, heating, and cleansing; but the lighting, heating, and cleansing cost, in respect of each meeting, more than the sum so charged. The use of the building was given not alone for meetings and entertainments of the inhabitants of the borough of Cork, but it was granted for meetings for purposes in connexion with the county of Cork and for other places. It was also used for concerts, bazaars, lectures, and such entertainments, and whenever a charge for admission to such entertainments was made, the corporation charged a sum of £3 for the use of the hall, which sum was intended to cover the actual cost of additional attendance and the cost of lighting and heating. The hall was sometimes used for meetings of the county borough council.

The Recorder was satisfied that the hall was the property of the Corporation, and in their occupation and under their control; that no member of the public could as of right claim to use the hall, and that whenever it was desired to have permission to use the hall an application for such permission was made to the committee of the Corporation which was entrusted with the care of the hall.

For the three years ending March 31st, 1913, the revenue from the letting of the hall was only £200 10s. 1d., while the expenditure, including sinking fund and interest, was £1,338 9s. 6d. It was proved on behalf of the appellants, and not controverted, that the income from the letting out of the hall for meetings, &c., did not disclose a profit, and that even if a profit did accrue, the amount of it would go to the city borough fund.

The contention on behalf of the appellants and the respondent respectively was similar to that in the next case.

In the second case the appeal was against a valuation of £120 placed upon premises the property of the Corporation of Cork, known as the Municipal Swimming Baths, in Eglinton Street, in the county borough of Cork. The grounds of objection were similar to those in the first case. The facts proved or admitted were as follows:—

The Baths and Wash-houses Act, 1846, was on June 23rd, 1899, adopted by the Corporation of Cork; and under the provisions of section 4 the expenses of carrying the Act into execution were made a charge upon, and to be paid out of, the public funds of the borough. Section 15 provided for the auditing of the accounts by the Local Government Board, and section 21 conferred borrowing powers. By section 20 power was given for the making of bye-laws, and by section 23 the Corporation were limited to such charges as were authorized by the statute. In 1904 the Corporation decided to provide public baths, and with the sanction of the Local Government Board money was borrowed for the purpose, and the baths were erected at a cost of £6,100; there was expended, in addition, for the heating of the baths £1,728, making a total expenditure of £7,828. Under the provisions of the statute all receipts from the use of the baths had to be paid into the borough fund. The baths were maintained at the expense of that fund. There were two baths of equal size, one of which was absolutely free to those using it. For the other bath a charge of twopence per person was made. The expenditure each year greatly exceeded the receipts from persons using the baths. From 1904 till the end of the financial year 1913, the total receipts amounted only to £1,262 as against an expenditure during that period of £8,071.

It was contended on behalf of the Corporation that there was, in fact, no real income from the baths, as the expenditure so much exceeded the receipts; that the receipts, such as they were, had, in pursuance of the provisions of the statute, to be applied to the borough fund; that the premises were altogether of a public nature, and used exclusively for public purposes; and that, therefore, they were exempt from rating.

It was contended on behalf of the Commissioner of Valuation that the premises were not used exclusively for public purposes, and were not altogether of a public nature, as they were not used for the benefit of the whole community of the taxable area. The taxable area for poor rate in this case was the poor law union of Cork, while the baths were an enterprise of the borough of Cork, which comprised only a portion of the union of Cork. It was urged that to exempt the premises from rating would mean increasing the proportion of the rates which should be borne by the portions of the taxable area outside the borough of Cork. It was pointed out that the receipts from the baths went to the credit of the borough fund, which was a fund peculiar to the borough of Cork, and that the inhabitants of the rest of the taxable area derived no benefit therefrom. It was further contended on behalf of the Commissioner that the baths were rateable for the purpose of poor rate, and for that purpose alone, and, therefore, could not be distinguished as exempt in the valuation list. It was further contended that the destination of the receipts, viz., that they should go to the borough fund, did not operate to render the premises exempt.

The Recorder was satisfied that the user of the baths was regulated by by-laws made by the corporation and duly approved of, and that no member of the public could, as of right, claim to use the baths. He was...