§ A person desiring to appeal against the decision of a registration officer must give notice of appeal in the prescribed form to the registration officer and to the opposite party, if any, when the decision is given or within five days thereafter, specifying the grounds of appeal.
§ The registration officer shall forward any such notices to the County Court in manner directed by rules of Court together, in each case, with a statement of 2304 the material facts which, in his opinion, have been established in the case: and of his decision upon the whole case and on any point which may be specified as a ground of appeal, and shall also furnish to the Court any further information which the Court may require and which he is able to furnish
Mr. HEALYI beg to move, in Rule 25, to leave out the words "specifying the grounds of appeal."
This matter was considered in Committee, but it was left open. It is already provided in a previous part of the Bill that the procedure on appeal shall be determined by rules of Court. As that is to be determined by rules of Court, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave this point open and not to tie their hands by express provision in the Act. These words were introduced when the Bill was in quite another form. It was only proposed then that there should be an appeal on questions of law. There may be some reason for contending that if you want an appeal on a question of law you should specify in your note of appeal what your point of law is, but we have now a general appeal on fact and law, and a man would appeal because he says, "You have struck me off the list and I want to be admitted," or vice versâ. If the objector is appealing he says, "You have put this man on the list when you should have struck him off." In those circumstances, what more is necessary in the notice of appeal than to say, "I appeal against the decision?" Is it not quite plain in that case what he is appealing against? If a man is struck off the list he does not appeal wanting to be more struck off. He wants to get on. If an objector appeals against a man being put on his object is quite plain, and there is no doubt about it. In all our Courts in recent years the tendency has been to get rid of elaboration of notices. If a man wants to appeal at present from the decision of a judge sitting in nisi prius he does not specify the point of law on which he appeals. He says, "I appeal." His opponent knows perfectly well what he is appealing about. Accordingly I submit, first, on the merits, that these words are unnecessary. But even if the right hon. Gentleman is not gully persuaded that I am right, I ask him to leave it to the gentlemen who are making the rules to decide what the notice of appeal is to be like, and not beforehand fetter his hands 2305 by telling him what must be and what must not be in the notice of appeal. It may very well be in some cases that the point of law may be specified. In some cases a general notice of appeal is sufficient and in others not. At any rate, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave the matter open, so that those who make the rules may take any course they think fit.
§ Sir G. CAVEI have not any very strong feeling about keeping the words in the Bill where they are, but I think the grounds ought to be specified. It is very convenient for the respondent to an appeal to know what it is he is going to fight when he gets before the tribunal. That is the object of specifying the grounds of appeal. It is also convenient for the Court to know what it is that it is going to decide. It may be a question of consolidating a number of appeals or using one as a test case for deciding the others. For that purpose it is very useful to know what are the points of law which are raised on a particular appeal. That is the reason why these words are here. I am very reluctant to differ from the hon. Member.
§ Sir G. CAVEI hope the hon. Member will not press that. I had rather keep the words in.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, after the word "appeal" ["specifying the grounds of appeal"], to insert the words,
The opposite party may notify in writing to the registration officer his desire to be heard on appeal and thereupon shall be joined with the registration officer as respondent.Under the present law the clerk of the county council, or the overseer, or the, town clerk can, without his consent, be made respondent. The registration officer now takes the place of these people, and would be the respondent, and obviously, being supposed to be more or less an impartial official, he is placed in considerable difficulty in arguing his case as strenuously as he would otherwise do. The opposing party ought to have an opportunity of presenting his case properly.
§ Colonel SANDERSI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir G. CAVEI certainly think the opposite party ought to have a right to be heard, but I should have thought, as we have said he shall have notice of appeal, it follows that he has a right to go and be heard on the appeal. No doubt this will be solved by the rules of Court. I do not quite like putting in the words.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESI should be glad if, in the consideration of any rules dealing with this matter, the right hon. Gentleman would remember the question of cost. I do not know what the position would be under the Act as to whether the registration officer would be liable to pay the costs of the appeal if he lost, but I think it is worth consideration whether, if you are to give the right to any party agent to come in and act as respondent in all these cases he should not be made liable for costs if he loses.
§ Amendment negatived.
Mr. HEALYI beg to move, to leave out the words, "together, in each case, with a statement of the material facts which, in his opinion, have been established in the case; and of his decision upon the whole case and on any point which may be specified as a ground of appeal, and shall also furnish to the Court any further information which the Court may require and which he is able to furnish."
I think this Clause is drawn on the original basis of the Bill when there was only an appeal on a point of law. It is quite right in that case that the registration officer should submit a statement of material facts. But as we are now to have an appeal both on law and fact I take it the case will be heard ab initio by the County Court, and I cannot imagine what good purpose would be served by directing the registration officer to submit to the tribunal which is to re-hear the case a statement of the material facts which, in his opinion, have been established. It would seem to suggest that the County Court is not to hear the case. I think the County Court would hear the evidence, just as the registration officer heard it, and probably more fully and with additional witnesses if necessary. I know of no form of appeal on a question of facts in which the Court below submits its view of the facts. It is quite probable that on some question of law the Court below 2307 should state the facts on which the Court of Appeal is to decide the law. But if this is to be an appeal on fact and on law, the view which the Court below has taken of the facts is entirely immaterial.
§ Sir G. CAVEThis has been considered by the County Court judges, and they have approved it.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think so. I think it has been recently done, but I will inquire about that. The practice sanctioned by this rule is followed in other cases, and the object of it is this. If there is no statement at all for the information of the Court the Court has to go into all the facts from beginning to end. If the facts were proved or admitted before the officer in question they do not require to be proved again. Of course, where there are disputed facts the case is different, but if you have to decide a point of law it is worth anything to have the facts proved clearly stated.
§ Amendment negatived.