Rating–Permission obtained by dock company for construction of a jetty and ancillary buildings in Harwich harbour–Permission not shown to extend to use of the jetty etc–No evidence that dock company were carrying on their undertaking under any enactment–Jetty etc to be valued for rating purposes under the ordinary provisions to that end, not under the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1971
This was an
application by the Harwich Dock Co Ltd for an order of mandamus requiring the
Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the valuation officer for the Colchester
area to calculate the rateable value of a jetty and premises at the Navyard
Wharf, Harwich, in accordance with the provisions of the Docks and Harbours (Valuation)
Order 1971.
Mr G Dobry QC
and Mr F A Amies (instructed by Middleton, Lewis & Co, of Horley, Surrey)
appeared for the applicants, and Mr B J Davenport (instructed by the Solicitor
of Inland Revenue) represented the respondents.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that the applicant company was incorporated in 1963
to carry on business at the Navyard Wharf. Pursuant to two Acts of Parliament,
the Harwich Harbour Act 1863 and the Harwich Harbour Act 1865, the company
applied to the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board for permission to erect a new
jetty and ancillary buildings. In their reply the conservancy board offered no
objection in principle, and the jetty and buildings were built. The respondent
now contended that the jetty and buildings fell to be dealt with, for the
purpose of calculating rateable value, in accordance with the General Rate Act
1967. The applicants contended that they were entitled to avail themselves of
the provisions of the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order) 1971 as being a dock
undertaking operating under the authority of two Public Acts.
By section 17
of the 1863 Act it was not lawful for any person within the jurisdiction of the
board to erect any building or jetty without consent, while section 26 of the
1865 Act required consent by licence for the construction of any jetty or
building. It was conceded that the jetty and buildings comprised a hereditament
and that the dock was a harbour undertaking. The dispute was whether the
carrying-on of such an undertaking was carried on under any enactment. The
applicants appeared to recognise that authority was required if they were to
erect the jetty, but that did not mean that their undertaking was being carried
on under any enactment. He (his Lordship) was not satisfied on the evidence
before the court that any authority was needed to use the jetty and buildings.
There was nothing to suggest that any further authority was required, once
permission had been given to erect the jetty, to use it. In his judgment the
application should be dismissed.
PARK and MAY
JJ agreed, and the application was dismissed with costs.
