Whaley v The Great Northern Railway Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: K. B. Div.,Appeal.
• Judgment Date: 17 December 1912
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Date: 17 December 1912

Whaley

and

The Great Northern Railway Company (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.

1913.

Local government — Rating — Land used as a railway — Valuation list — Rate based on valuation — Finality of rate — Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 103), sects. 60, 62 — Valuation Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 63), sects. 12, 27.

Held, by the King's Bench Division (Palles, C.B., and Kenny, J.; Wright, J., diss.) and by the Court of Appeal, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full rate.

Held, by Palles, C.B., and the Court of Appeal, that the description in the final list delivered by the Commissioner of Valuation was conclusive that the hereditaments were not a “railway” or “lands used as a railway,” and that the urban council were bound accordingly to rate them at their full value.

Per Kenny, J.: A mistake in the description of the hereditaments could only have been corrected (1) by an objection lodged with the Commissioner of Valuation; (2) by an appeal from the Commissioner; or (3) by an appeal from the rate.

New Trial Motion.

The action was brought by the plaintiff, as rate-collector of the Urban District Council of Omagh, to recover £62 0s. 9d., the balance alleged to be due by the defendant of a sum of £287 15s. 10d. assessed by the council on hereditaments and

premises of the defendants at Omagh, for the year ending the 31st March, 1911, under sect. 60 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, which section was made applicable to the town of Omagh by sect. 41 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. Certain of the premises so rated were entered in the column of the valuation list prepared by the Commissioner of Valuation in force at the time of the assessment as “Railway,” and were assessed, under sect. 62 of the Towns Improvement Act of 1854, in the proportion of one-fourth part only of their net annual value; but other of the premises, described as “Omagh station, part of; stationmaster's house; corn store; refreshment room; Market Street station; engine-shed; and turn-table,” were inserted in the valuation list not under the heading of “railways, fisheries,” &c., but under that of “buildings,” and were assessed in the full amount of the valuation. No objection was taken by the defendants to the valuation list, and they entered no appeal against either the list or against the rate assessed. The defendants paid, and the plaintiff received, the sum of £225 15s., on account of the total amount of the rates, and the defendants further paid into Court a sum to meet the rates in respect of the premises in dispute, calculated in the proportion of one-fourth part of their net annual value.

The action was tried before Mr. Justice Dodd, on the 19th and 20th Dec., 1911, when judgment was entered for the defendants; and the plaintiff now moved to set aside this judgment, and that judgment for the full sum of £62 0s. 9d., should be entered for him.

The arguments of counsel on both sides are fully referred to in the judgments of the Court.

An urban council pursuant to sect. 60 of the Towns Improvement (Ir.) Act, 1854, struck a rate on hereditaments and premises the property of a railway company, based upon the final valuation list delivered by the Commissioner of Valuation. Certain premises, alleged by the railway company to be “used as a railway,” and as such liable to be assessed in the proportion of one-fourth part only of their net annual value under sect. 62 of the Act of 1854, were included in the said valuation list under the heading “buildings” and not under the heading “railways, fisheries, &c.,” and were accordingly assessed by the urban council at their full value. No objection was made by the railway company to the valuation list prior to the striking of the rate, and no appeal was taken by them either against the valuation or the rate. The urban council having sued the railway company for the disputed rates—

Henry, K.C., Chambers, K.C., and Murnaghan for the plaintiff.

Ronan, K.C., Gordon, K.C., and Hunt, for the defendants.

Wright, J.:—

The first and main reliance of the plaintiff is on the description of the premises in question in the valuation lists prepared by the Commissioner of Valuation, and forwarded to the local authority. These lists are undoubtedly the basis upon which the rating authority acts; the duty of the County or Urban District Council is to make a rate according to the revised list sent to them by the Commissioner of Valuation: vide Article 37 (n) of Adaptation of Enactments Order, 1899. The form to be used by the Commissioner was prescribed by the schedule to the Valuation Act of 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 63), but for this a new form was substituted by the schedule to the Act of 1860, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 8, with power to the Treasury (by sect. 6) to alter the form from time to time as they might think fit. It has been stated that the present form, sanctioned by the Treasury, has been in use since 1899. A duty is, by the Valuation Acts of 1852 and 1854, imposed upon the Commissioner of “distinguishing” in the lists all such hereditaments as are of a public nature or used for charitable purposes, or for the purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts; and from such a determination or statement by the Commissioner of the nature or user of such premises, an appeal was given to Quarter Sessions, with power to state a case for the Superior Court. In Moore v. Boyd (1) this Court has decided that the decision of the Recorder that buildings are used for public purposes is a judgment in rem as to the nature of the user of such hereditaments, and is “binding and conclusive on all parties to all intents and purposes whatsoever,” in the words of sect. 23 of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63. But as regards all other classes of premises, no such duty is imposed on the Commissioner. The list prepared in his office sets out the valuation and area, and purports to give a description of each tenement or rateable hereditament, so as presumably to show that it comes within the enumeration of rateable hereditaments specified in sect. 12 of the Act of 1852, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63. Any person aggrieved by reason of the valuation of any hereditament, or by reason of any inaccurate statement of area or inaccurate description of the hereditament, may send in a written complaint, which the Commissioner may himself investigate, and may, if he thinks it necessary, employ a valuator or surveyor to assist him (sects. 19 and 20 of the Act). In addition

an appeal to Quarter Sessions from the valuation is given to any person aggrieved by sect. 22. Sect. 23 deals with the hearing of such appeal; power is given to the Court “to hear all parties who may be directly or indirectly interested in the cause of the appeal, and to make such order thereon as to the Court shall seem fit.” On the hearing the valuation lists signed by the Commissioner of Valuation are to be deemed prima facie evidence of the correctness of the valuation until the contrary is shown, and, as already stated, the determination of the Court in or concerning the premises is declared to be “conclusive and binding on all parties, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.” That is the statutory declaration of the force and operation of the decision of a Court on the hearing of a valuation appeal, and Moore v. Boyd (1), already quoted, does no more on this point than give effect to the express words of the statute. With the preparation and transmission of the lists to the local bodies the function of the Commissioner, generally speaking, comes to an end; and I may here quote from the judgment of Mr. Justice Holmes, in the Dublin Cemeteries Committee v. Commissioner of Valuation (2):— “In preparing those lists the liability to rates of the premises included does not arise directly at all, and those lists when finally settled are not conclusive as to the rateability of such premises.” They are conclusive as to the amount of the valuation, but they do not impose or declare liability. In the words of FitzGibbon, L.J., in the Trinity CollegeCase (3): “The Valuation Acts were not taxing Acts. They made the tenement valuation the basis of taxation where they applied, they defined ‘rateable hereditaments,’ but they did not rate or empower any local authority to rate, property otherwise exempted or not otherwise rated.” In fact, what are these lists but documents prepared in a Public Department by the staff of the Commissioner, and signed by him? It is wholly and purely departmental work; nothing in the nature of a determination or decision as to the character of the premises (I am speaking of course of premises other than those used for public or charitable or scientific purposes, &c.). It is no part of his duty, it is not within his power, to decide whether they are lands used as a railway, and therefore assessable only to the extent of one-fourth, or not.

To turn to the list in the present case, which is in the form approved of by the Treasury, and in general use, there are separate columns for “lands” and “buildings,” and another for “railways, fisheries, tolls, half-rents,” &c. The figure £382 appears as the rateable annual valuation of “buildings” described as “Omagh Station, part of, and stationmaster's house.” By sect. 62 of the Towns Improvement Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 103, “all lands used as a railway constructed under any Act of Parliament for public conveyance shall be assessed and liable in the proportion of one-fourth part only of the net annual value of such lands.” If the list, as prepared and forwarded, is binding and conclusive, lands coming within sect. 62 of the Act of 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 103) are assessed and rated at their full annual value, as the result of a misdescription, instead of at one-fourth of it, in violation of the public statute...