Jurisdiction of High Court–Mortgagees’ claim for possession–Land in question two separate hereditaments–First hereditament with net annual value for rating of £742–Second hereditament agricultural land not liable to be rated–Question whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear case or whether it fell within exclusive jurisdiction of the county court because not above the £1,000 limit–Agricultural land treated as having a net annual value for rating for this purpose ‘equal to its value by the year’–Aggregate net annual value thus sufficient to give High Court jurisdiction
This was an
originating summons under which P B Frost Ltd claimed possession as mortgagees
of certain land against the defendant, William James Green. A question arose as
to whether the action was within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
C P F Rimer
(instructed by Burchell & Ruston, agents for Gepp & Sons, of
Chelmsford) appeared for the plaintiffs; Stephen Hunt (instructed by Blacket
Gill & Langhams, agents for Peter M Cox & Co, of Melton Mowbray)
represented the defendant.
Giving
judgment, SLADE J said that the plaintiffs’ title arose under a legal charge
dated January 19 1977 whereby in consideration for a loan of £40,000, the
defendant charged two separate hereditaments at Pickwell, Leicestershire,
namely, a manor house with 12 acres of adjoining land and 218 acres of freehold
agricultural land comprising no dwelling-house. It had been stated that the net
annual value for rating of the manor house was £742. The 218 acres were not
liable to be rated or included in any valuation list for rating purposes
because they comprised solely agricultural land. It was, he thought, common
ground that the plaintiffs’ title to possession had been made out subject only
to the question of jurisdiction and to any question of suspending the operation
of any order or of postponing the date for delivery of possession.
Section 37(1)
of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 provided:
Where a
mortgage of land consists of or includes a dwelling-house and no part of the
land is situated in Greater London, then, subject to subsection (2) below, if a
county court had jurisdiction by virtue of section 48 of the County Courts Act
1959 or section 38 of this Act to hear and determine an action in which the
mortgagee under that mortgage claims possession of the mortgaged property, no
court other than a county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine
that action.
There was no
dispute on the facts that the first two of the three conditions were fulfilled
here. The question arose in relation to the third. Mr Hunt, for the defendant,
claimed that the county court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the
present proceedings by virtue of section 48 of the County Courts Act 1959 and
accordingly, that the third condition was fulfilled, just as much as the first
and second, so as to deprive the High Court of jurisdiction. Section 48(1) of
the County Courts Act 1959 provided that a county court should have
jurisdiction to hear and determine any action for recovery of land where the
net annual value for rating of the land in question was not above the county
court limit. The county court limit referred to was fixed at £1,000 by the
Administration of Justice Act 1973, section 6 and Schedule 2. But the answer,
in his (his Lordship’s) judgment, was to be found, as Mr Rimer for the
plaintiffs had submitted, in section 200 of the County Courts Act 1959.
Section 200(2)
provided the answer to the problems that would otherwise arise in attempting to
apply section 48 in the untidy case where the property sought to be recovered
did not consist of one or more separate hereditaments, each having a separate
net annual value for rating. Paragraph (a) of the subsection covered the case
where the relevant property or part of it did not have a separate net annual value
for rating, but formed part of a larger hereditament which did have such a
value. Paragraph (b) then went on to cover any other case where the property
sought to be recovered did not consist of one or more separate hereditaments
each having a separate net annual value for rating. In particular, in his
judgment, it covered the case where the property sought to be recovered was or
included property which did not have a net annual value for rating at all,
because it was not liable to be rated. He concluded that section 200(2)(b) was
apt to cover a case such as the present.
Applying this
to the facts of the case, the net annual value for rating of the 218 acres fell
to be treated as being ‘equal to its value by the year.’ This phrase was not defined in the 1959 Act,
but the judge thought that the meaning to be attributed would be one very
similar to the formula provided by section 19(3) of the General Rate Act 1967
in relation to hereditaments other than houses or other non-industrial
buildings. But he did not think it was necessary to pursue this point. The
plaintiffs had deposed to the fact that the value of the 218 acres ‘by the
year’ must be ‘well in excess of £258.’
This allegation had not been denied in any evidence on behalf of the
defendant.
Accordingly he
found that the net annual value for rating for the purpose of the two sections
of the lands which were the subject of this application totalled in the
aggregate more than £1,000. He therefore concluded that the county court did
not have jurisdiction to hear the application under
submission that the jurisdiction of the High Court was excluded by section 37
of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. In his judgment this court had
jurisdiction to hear the case.
