Clause 3.—(PROCEDURE, APPEALS, COSTS AND FEES.) (Hansard, 22 March 1949)

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 6, line 46, to leave out from "be." to "the," in line 3, on page 7.
The effect of this Amendment will be to avoid a kind of four-tier hierarchy, that is, the possibility that a dispute in regard to these matters may go first to the tribunal and then to the High Court, and from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and eventually from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. I am afraid that I have on previous occasions commented critically and strongly upon the fact that in various fields of our law, of which the revenue law is a notorious example, the unfortunate litigant may have to go, or may have to be dragged, right through these various stages until he secures the certainty of a final judgment in the House of Lords.
I should certainly not like to be a party to increasing the number of cases where that result, which I think is wholly deplorable, arises. We have therefore put down this Amendment to ensure that 301 there shall be only three possible tiers in this particular judicial hierarchy. Appeals will go straight from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. That arrangement will serve both to indicate the high status which the tribunal is intended to possess, and will also avoid an undue multiplicity of litigation in these cases.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)
We need not take up much time in discussing this big change that is being made. I think it is a desirable change. I think it is clear that there will be a right of appeal, with leave, to the House of Lords, a point to which I drew attention on Second Reading; but I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in fact, that is so.

§ The Attorney-General
Yes, Sir. The hon. and learned Member has an Amendment on the Order Paper which is intended to meet that point, but I think it will now be unnecessary. There will be an appeal, with leave, to the House of Lords.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)
As probably the only layman present at the moment, may I also say that I am grateful for this Amendment?

The Lord-Advocate
I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, to leave out from the first "court," to the end of line 14.
The words proposed to be left out were originally incorporated to enable appeals from the Lands Tribunal to be heard by any three judges of the Court of Session. We had in contemplation the possibility of using the valuation appeal court as the appropriate court of appeal in this case. However, in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, it was considered that this would involve unnecessary machinery, as it would necessitate the setting up of special rules of court to deal with that particular type of case. Accordingly, we propose to leave out these words, the result being that these appeals will go to the Inner House of the Court of Session in the normal way and will be disposed of as normal appeals in the Inner House.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
In the course of my speech on Second Reading, I asked whether the Attorney-General could elucidate the application, in subsection (4), of the words: is given on a review by way of appeal of the previous decision of another person. The Attorney-General was good enough to say that he had the answer to my point, but that as it was a little involved it could perhaps be dealt with on the Committee stage. The Committee stage has now arrived, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his deferred explanation.

§ The Attorney-General
Oddly enough I have the answer, but I wonder whether the hon. Member really wants me to deal with it now or whether he would like a letter about it. It is involved and a bit technical. I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we dealt with it on Report or by letter.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I am in the hands of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My only point is that as it is a little involved and difficult it might be helpful for people hereafter if an explanation were recorded in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

§ The Attorney-General
The second half of the proviso deals with this case; that where the tribunal are reviewing the decision of another person, for instance an arbitrator, a Minister, the Central Land Board, or possibly the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that other person, if he is dissatisfied, can require a case to be stated. I think it is fairly simple after all.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could elucidate a little further the reference to the Central Land Board. That presumably will be in respect of the powers of the Lands Tribunal under the Town and Country Planning Act for arbitrations in respect of loss of development value in founding claims on the £300 million fund. Are there any other cases in which he contemplates that that position could arise? I am not aware of them myself, but there may be some.

§ The Attorney-General
I shall undertake to take further instructions on this question and to send the hon. Gentleman a catalogue of the possible cases which might arise under the proviso.