HC Deb 09 March 1911 vol 22 cc1491-3

It is hereby declared that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, if dissatisfied with the decision of a referee, have under Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the principal Act a right of appeal to the High Court against the decision as persons aggrieved within the meaning of that provision.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Why should the Government introduce this Bill which, on the face of it, seems to show that the private litigant would be severely penalised. Section 33 of the principal Act provides, first, for an appeal to the Referees, and appeals to the court, in some cases to the county council, and in cases of greater importance to the High Court. At present the owner would be served with a provisional valuation by the Commissioner. The appeal to the Referees may involve a long and expensive process, and if satisfaction is not got there may be an appeal to the High Court on questions of law, not on fact.

Sir BUFUS ISAACS

Under Section 10 of the Act of 1894 an appeal exists both on law and fact. I was one of the Members who pressed that there should be an appeal on law and fact; and not merely a mere statement of a case on a point of law. The Act was passed giving the full right of appeal both on law and fact.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for refreshing my memory. The point, however, is really a minor one. What I had in my mind was that there is first the provisional valuation and then the appeal to the Referees, and then to the High Court and Court of Appeal. All that will involve a very long, tedious and expensive process. I submit that the Government should not take the unfortunate private litigant further, because their purse is long and his is short. The Government are satisfied with the knowledge and status of the Referees, and I submit there is no justification for giving this right of appeal to the Government as well as to the private person.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The object of the Clause is to remove a doubt, although I do not think myself that there is any real room for doubt. When the alteration was made in the appeal under the Act of 1909–10 the words used were "any person aggrieved," and the question was raised whether those words would cover the case of the Commissioners. The Referees are not Government Referees, as they were in the original Bill. In the Committee that was altered, and now they are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institute. The Clause is intended to remove any possibility of litigation on the question as to whether the Commissioners are covered by the words "any person aggrieved." In these cases you get two parties who go before the Referees, and it is rather in consequence of that that the difficulty arose.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Is this simply a speculative doubt, or has it arisen in cases?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I will tell you how the question arose. The matter of appeals came up, and some one raised a doubt as to whether Commissioners were "persons aggrieved." I suggested that it was desirable to remove any possibility of litigation on the point, and therefore to have a declaratory Clause. That is the sole object of putting it in.