Moylan v Dublin Port and Docks Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 November 1875
• Date: 27 November 1875
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

Before PIGOT, C. B., FITZGERALD and DEASY, BB.

MOYLAN

and

THE DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD

Mersey Docks Trustees v. CameronENR 11 H. L. C. 443.

Guardians of The Londonderry Union v. The Londonderry Bridge CommissionersUNKIR I. R. 1 C. L. 283.

Collection of Rates in the Municipal district of Dublin — Rateability of property of a public nature occupied in the public service — County Rates — 17 Vict. c. 8, s. 2 — Appeal against revised Valuation.

Vol.. VI.] COMMON LAW SERIES. is very unsatisfactory ; the facts are not fully reported, and in a subsequent case of Scott v. Bennett (1) I have felt it my duty to comment upon it. O'BRIEN, J.: It has been said that there was some misapprehension on the part of the learned Judge ; but it might equally be said that there was a mistake on the part of the Registrar ; and the Judge eviÂdently came to the conclusion that there had been a mistake by the officer. It does not necessarily follow that where a certificate is given under section 126 of the C. L. P. Act, 1853, the Plaintiff is also entitled to one under the 243rd section. Each party is to abide his own costs of this motion. No rule. Attorney for the Plaintiff : A. Elliott. Attorneys for the Defendants : J. H. C. Moore. of a public nature occupied in the public service-County .Rates-17 Vict. c. 8, s. 2-Appeal against revised Valuation. The following rates, leviable within the municipal district of Dublin, namely-Police rate, Improvement rate, District Sewer rate, Domestic Water rate, and Public Water rate, are not county rates, within the meaning of the 2nd section of the 17 Viet. c. 8 ; and buildings of a public nature, distinÂguished as such in the Valuation Lists, prepared pursuant to the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63, and occupied for the public service, are rateable in respect of these five rates, but are exempt from assessment in respect of Poor rate and Grand Jury cess. The reversal by the Court of Quarter Sessions of the decision of the ComÂmissioner of Valuation on appeal under the 31st section of the 15 & 16 Viet c. 63, will not have the effect, by relation, of avoiding ab initio aValuation List prepared pursuant to that Act, in any respect in which it was not altered by the Commissioner of Valuation in the revision appealed from. ' (I) I. Rep. 8 C. L. 217. BALD and DEASY, BB. (2) Before PIGOT, C. B., FiTZGE X 2 DUB. POET & Docks BD. provisions of that Act and the Acts referred to therein, the Dublin Improvement Act, 1849, and the Dublin Corporation Water Works Act, 1861, in respect of lands, houses, tenements, and hereditaÂments, within the municipal district of Dublin, and occupied by the Defendants at the several times of the rates being made, asÂsessed, applotted and declared, and of the same becoming due and payable. Among the rates claimed were the Police rate, Poor rate, ImÂprovement rate, District Sewer rate, Grand Jury cess, Domestic Water rate, and Public Water rate. The Defendants' sixth defence, which was pleaded to so much of the first count of the Summons and Plaint as related. to these last-mentioned rates, stated :- " That, at the respective times in the said count mentioned, the lands, houses, tenements, and hereditaments, in the said count mentioned, were of a public nature, and were so distinguished, and marked as exempt from assessment, by the Commissioner of Valuation, in the list or table thereof, and of the valuation thereof, made out by the said Commissioner, for the purpose of all public and local assessment and other rating ; and the said lands, houses, tenements, and hereditaments have since continued to be, and now are, of a public nature, and occupied for the public service : and the Defendants pray that this plea may be taken distributively, and as a separate plea to each of the said rates." The seventh defence, which was also pleaded to so much of the first count as related to the same rates, submitted that the PlainÂtiff ought not to be admitted to say that the said rates were duly made, assessed, applotted and declared, under the provisions of the Acts in the count mentioned:- " Because the same were made, assessed, applotted and declared according to a list or table of the houses, lands, tenements, and hereditanuents, in the said count mentioned, and of their respective valuation (hereinafter called the said list or table of valuations), theretofore made out by the Commissioner of Valuation, in which list or table of valuations the said lands, houses, tenements, and hereditaments were included as rateable houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and were not distinguished as houses, lands, tenements, and here VoL. VI.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 301 ditaments of a public nature, and exempt from assessment ; and the Defendants, Exchequer. being aggrieved by the said list or table of valuations, and by the valuations made 1872. thereby, and by reason of the inclusion in the said list or table of valuations of the said houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments as rateable, and by reason IllOYLAN of the same not having been distinguished therein as houses, lands, tenements, Dun. PORT & and hereditaments of a public nature, and exempt from assessment, on the 10th Docxs Iln. day of January, 1870, caused to be delivered to the Clerks of the Boards of Guardians of the Unions in which the said houses, lands, tenements, and herediÂtaments were and are respectively situate, such notice of appeal to the CommisÂsioner of Valuation, against the said list or table of valuations, as by law in that behalf required, setting forth the grounds of such grievance, and requiring the said Commissioner to distinguish the said houses, lands, tenements, and herediÂtaments, in the said list or table of valuations, as houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments of a public nature, and exempt from assessment ; and the said Commissioner of Valuation, having considered the subject matter of the said notice, on the 18th day of January, 1870, refused to alter the said list or table of valuations ; and, on the said 18th day of January, 1870, made out and signed a list or statement of the cases in which he had so refused to alter the said list or table of valuations, being all the cases comprised in the said notice ; and thereÂupon the Defendants, on the 29th day of January, 1870, caused to be delivered to the Clerks of the Board of Guardians aforesaid, such notices as by law in that behalf required, of their intention to appeal to the next General or Quarter SesÂsions of the Peace for the county of the city of Dublin, being the county of the city in which the said houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments were and are situate, and duly prosecuted the said appeals before the Court of Quarter SesÂsions of the Peace for the county of the city aforesaid (being the Court empowered to hear and determine the matter of the said appeals), at the then next ensuing General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county of the city aforesaid ; and the matter of the said appeals having been heard before the said Court, it was determined by the said Court that the Commissioner of Valuation ought to have distinguished the said houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in the said list or table of valuations, as houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments of a public nature, and exempt from assessment ; and it was ordered by the said Court that the said valuations be reversed, of all which the Plaintiff had notice ; and thereupon, the said Commissioner of Valuation, in pursuance of and in obedience to the said orders so made on the said appeals as aforesaid, made such alterations in the said list or table of valuations as were necessary for carrying out and giving effect to the said orders, and the said Commissioner corrected the aforesaid list or table of valuations, and distinguished the said houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the said list or table of valuations, as houses, lands, tenements, and hereditaments of a public nature, and exempt from assessÂment; and the said list or table of valuations, so altered as aforesaid, now remains in full force : and the Defendants say that the rates aforesaid were not, nor were nor was any of them made, assessed, applotted, and declared, according to the The Plaintiff demurred to both these defences, inasmuch as they neither alleged that the premises in question were not rateable, nor disclosed any sufficient ground for exempting them from the rates demanded : and as to the sixth defence, because it did not show that the Commissioner of Valuation had authority to distinguish thb premises as exempt from assessment, and did not show that the rates ought to have been assessed, applotted, and declared, accordÂing to the list or table of valuations therein mentioned ; and as to the seventh defence, upon the grounds that it did not show that the Defendants had the right of appeal, or that the Court of QuarÂter Sessions had jurisdiction to make the order mentioned in the defence, and because it did not show what alterations were made by the Commissioner in the list or table of valuations, or why such alterations should affect the right of the Plaintiff to recover. Bewley and Heron, Q. C. for the Plaintiff. Robertson and Exham, Q. C., for the Defendants. The following were cited or referred to in the course of the arguments : Mersey Docks Trustees v. Cameron (1) ; Guardians of The LonÂdonderry Union v. The Londonderry Bridge Commissioners (2) ; 9 & 10 Vict. e. 110, ss. 28, 33, 43 ; 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63, ss. 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 32, 33 ; 17 Viet. c. 8, ss. 1, 2, 4 ; 7 Wm. 4, & 1 Vict. c. 25 ; 2 & 3 Viet. c. 78, s. 10 ; 1 & 2 Viet. c. 56, s. 63 ; 12 & 13 Vict. c. 97, as. 62, 113, 115, 117 ; 10 & 11 Viet. c. 34, ss. 167, 168 ; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 172, Loc. & Pers., (The Dublin Corporation Water Works Act, 1861), as. 55, 56 ; 32 & 33 Viet. a. 100, Loc. & Pers., (Dublin Port and Docks Act, 1869), ss. 224, 225. June 15. The judgment of the...