The Sligo Rural District Council, Respondents v Gilbert Hanly and Others, Appellants,

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 February 1918
• Date: 25 February 1918
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

Gilbert Hanly and Others

Appellants

and

The Sligo Rural District Council

Respondents (1).

K. B. Div.

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.

1918.

Local Government — Public Health — Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 52), sects. 2, 61, 66, 67, 68, 232, 233, and 279 — Water rate — Cost of construction included in rate — Validity — Appeal — Grounds of appeal — “Stated and specified.”

A water rate imposed, under sect. 66 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 52), on voluntary consumers of water, being in fact the price of the water supplied, necessarily has relation to the cost of production as well as of maintenance of the water supply. A water rate struck and assessed under this section can include a reasonable amount for discharge of capital expenses of construction.

Mayor of Worcester v. Droitwich Assessment Committee (2 Ex. D).)discussed and distinguished.

The provision in sect. 269 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 52), requiring the grounds of an appeal against a rate to be “stated and specified” in the notice of intention to appeal, is not a provision as to form only, but is of substance, and no ground is open on appeal unless it is stated in clear and unambiguous language in the notice, and in such a way that the respondent can be made aware of the points upon which the rate is impeached.

The respondents, as sanitary authority, struck and assessed a water rate under sect. 66 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 vict. c. 52). The rate included a reasonable amount applicable to payment of capital charges and interest incurred in the cost of constructing the water works. The appellants, on whom the rate was assessed, in their notice of appeal stated as grounds of appeal, amongst others, the following:—1, that the rate was made without authority; and, 2, that the rate was made for purposes to which it was not legally applicable, namely, the raising of moneys which were properly raisable by a special poundage rate to be added to poor rate under sects. 232 and 233 of the statute. The court of appeal held that the second of these two grounds had not been established, but quashed the rate as being invalid because struck by a resolution not under seal. on case stated, held, 1, that the first of the above two grounds was not “stated and specified” as required by sect. 269 of the statute, and that the court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear or determine any objection as to the want of a sealed resolution; 2, that the second of the above grounds was sufficiently stated and specified, and that the rate was not invalid by reason of its including a sum applicable to payment of the capital expenses of construction.

Case Stated by His Honour the County Court Judge of the county of Sligo, on the hearing on the 19th, 20th, and 29th October, 1917, of two appeals against a water rate struck by the Sligo Rural District Council.

By a sealed order of the Local Government Board for Ireland, made under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 54), sect. 5, sub-s. 1, and dated the 19th February, 1912, the Sligo Rural District Council were ordered to provide a water supply for Rosses' Point, which was situate in the district of which the council was the local sanitary authority; and by a subsequent sealed order of the same board, dated 22nd July, 1913, it was ordered that the Sligo dispensary district, so far as it was situated in the rural district of Sligo, should be the area of charge on which all expenses incurred or to be incurred for the purpose of providing the above-mentioned water supply should be charged.

At a meeting of the Sligo Rural District Council, held at Sligo on the 27th January, 1917, a resolution to strike a domestio water rate of 2s. 6d. in the £ for the purposes of the water supply to Rosses' Point (which supply was then in working order) was passed, and under that resolution the rate was assessed on all the premises in the townland of Rosses Upper which were supplied with the council's water. On the 14th June, 1917, demand notes were served on the ratepayers so assessed for the quarter commencing the 25th March, 1917, and on the 18th September, 1917, summonses were taken out by the council against sixteen ratepayers, of whom Gilbert Hanly was one. Two appeals, one by Gilbert Hanly, and the other by Gilbert Hanly and the other fifteen ratepayers, were taken and were heard at the Sligo Quarter Sessions on the 19th, 20th, and 29th October, 1917.

The two notices of appeal were identical, and the grounds of appeal therein stated were as follows:—

1. The said rate is invalid, and is made and struck and assessed and sought to be levied without authority, and ought to be quashed.

2. The appellants and other persons upon whom the said rate has been made did not enter into any agreements with the Sligo Rural District Council for the supply of water to their premises.

3. The said rate has been assessed upon persons to whose premises the Sligo Rural District Council do not supply water.

4. The said rate has been struck for purposes for which it is not legally applicable, and for the purpose of obtaining moneys which the Rural District Council are not legally entitled to raise thereby, but which can be raised only as part of the poor rate by a special poundage rate to be added to the poor rate on the Sligo rural dispensary district, being the contributory place which the Local Government Board for Ireland have duly determined to be the area of charge for the special expenses incurred by the Sligo Rural District Council in respect of the construction of the works for and providing of a water supply within the said contributory place.

“5. The said rate is ultra vires, inequitable, unfair, and unreasonable.”

Having regard to the decision of the Court as to the sufficiency of these notices of appeal, only the material portions of the case as stated by His Honour are below extracted.

“Mr. R. G. Leonard appeared for the appellants, and Mr. W. M. Jellett K.C. for the respondents. The following facts were proved in evidence, or admitted at the hearing of the appeals:—The poor law valuation of the contributory area, namely the Sligo dispensary district, in so far as it is situated in the rural district of Sligo is £21,680 9s., and a rate of 1d. in the £ produced about £90. The waterworks for the supply of water to the contributory area were finished in the month of August, 1915. The total cost of the construction was £4,450, and the annual sum payable for interest and repayment of sinking fund on loans obtained by the respondents from the Board of Works and Provincial Bank for these waterworks is £337 2s. 5d., and the times when the loans will be repaid are twenty years for part of the loans and thirty years for the other part. The cost of supplying the water for the year from March, 1917, to March 25th, 1918, is £36 17s. 7d., consisting of three items—1, payment to caretaker of waterworks, £12; 2, poor rates paid by the respondents on the waterworks, £16 17s. 7d.; repairing a breach which occurred in waterworks through an accident, £8 6s. 2d. A water rate of 2s. 6d. in the £ on the premises supplied with water by the respondents at the time the rate in question was made was estimated to bring in about £68, so that (and this was admitted by the respondents) the rate in dispute in this case of 2s. 6d. in the £, in addition to payment of cost of supply of water for the year was also intended to go in part relief of ratepayers in the contributory area for cost of construction. The contributory area or place comprises, and the water-pipes attached to these waterworks go through, and are, therefore, capable of being used for five townlands, viz.:—1, Teesan; 2, Rosses Upper; 3, Springfield; 4, Bally welan; 5, Cregg. The respondents are the sanitary authority of the district in which the waterworks are situated, and in which the contributory place is situate.” [His Honour then set out the resolution of 27th January, 1917, and the fact that it was not sealed with the council's seal.] “This is the only resolution dealing with the striking or making of the rate in question and the only resolution dealing in any way with the rate.

“The townland of Rosses Upper is in the contributory place, and all the premises supplied with water by the respondents on January 27th, 1917, are situated in the townland of Rosses Upper, except two premises or sets of premises situated in the townland of Cregg, which townland is also in the contributory place. No water rents have been agreed to or charged for the year in question for any water supplied in the contributory place. All the appellants have premises in the town land of Rosses Upper (except Eleanor Hunter, whose premises are in the townland of Cregg), and all of them are supplied with water by the respondents, and were so supplied on the 27th January, 1917. The annual value of the premises of some of the appellants does not exceed £10, within the meaning of sect. 72 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17), which is incorporated with the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, by and to the extent set out in sect. 67 of the latter Act.” [His Honour then set out the names of the appellants, with the respective annual value of their premises.]

“The appeals were brought under and pursuant to sect. 269 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, which for brevity is hereinafter referred to as ‘the appeal section.’ As the Court held that only one of the grounds of appeal stated in the notice and argued before His Honour was open for his decision, it is sufficient to summarize shortly His Honour's decisions on the points which the Court held were not open for decision. Mr. Leonard argued that the rate was invalid by reason of not being under seal, and that...