Drainage board cannot defeat occupier’s appeal against assessment by ‘dragging its feet’ and failing to pass on notice of objection to the local valuation court on expiration of appropriate period–Order of mandamus granted requiring court to hear appeal
This was a
motion by H Prins Ltd, of Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, for orders of certiorari and
mandamus for the purpose of securing a hearing before the West Norfolk
Valuation Panel of an appeal by the applicants against an assessment to
drainage rates made by the West of Ouse Internal Drainage Board.
Lord Colville
(instructed by Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert, agents for Metcalfe, Copeman &
Pettefar, of Wisbech) appeared for the applicants, and Mr H K Woolf (instructed
by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the respondent panel.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that the applicants owned property in Wisbech and
the drainage board had authority to levy a drainage rate. Until recent years
the valuation for the purposes of this rate was taken to be the Schedule A
valuation for income tax, but this proved unsatisfactory for a number of
reasons, and the position was now governed by section 29 (2) of the Land
Drainage Act 1930 as amended by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1968. Under this, drainage boards themselves assessed valuations, subject to an
appeal to the local valuation court. The board concerned in the present case
placed a valuation of £744 on the applicant’s greenhouses. Within 28 days of
service of the board’s notice of assessment, as required by the statute, the
applicants served notice of objection on the board. Where such notice was
served, and was not withdrawn by the owner-occupier, or the authority did not
withdraw the assessment, within a further 28 days, the board had to transmit
the notice of objection ‘forthwith’ to the clerk of the local valuation court.
What happened here was that there were negotiations between the applicants and
the board with a view to reaching an agreement on the rate, and because these
negotiations took time the board failed in their duty to send the applicant’s
notice of objection to the clerk of the West Norfolk Valuation Panel
immediately after expiry of a further period of 28 days. The Act clearly
contemplated that, negotiations or not, if the drainage board had not cancelled
its demand after the further 28 days, it had to send the notice of objection on
to the clerk of the valuation panel straight away, but in fact the notice here,
which was served by the applicants on March 29 1972, was not sent on by the
board until some time in November 1973. When it arrived, the panel took the
view that they had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because the
objection had not been sent to them in time. The panel accordingly refused to
hear the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the board’s rating assessment.
Mr Woolf, for
the respondents, accepted that the panel was wrong. The failure of the drainage
board to send on the notice of the objection did not mean that the panel could
not adjudicate. It would be very odd if that was the case, because it would
mean that by dragging its feet the drainage board could defeat any attempt by
an owner-occupier to appeal against a rating assessment, which would be
ridiculous. Certiorari was unnecessary to quash the non-decision here, but
mandamus should go.
ASHWORTH and
MICHAEL DAVIES JJ agreed, and an order was made accordingly.
