- Email: [email protected]
Court of appeal
PUBLIC
1913. LA\¥ R E P O R T S .
COURT OF APPEAL. October I6th, 1913. VAUGHAN \VILLIAMS, BUCKLEY, AND H.'~.',HLTON, L.j.j. REX v. TH~ LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD,CX parle
BEFORE
~RLIDGE.
Housing of the \Vorking Classes Acts--Closing Order--Refusal to d e t e r m i n e - - A p p e a l - Procedure of Local Government B o a r d - Non-disclosure of Inspector's Report. The Court held that an onter made by the Local Government Board dismissing an appeal by an owner from a refusal by a local authoH O, to deteVmine a closing order was im,alid, because the procedure of the Board on the hearing of such appeal was contrary to natural justice in that the appellant had had no opportunity of seein~ and of answering the documents and the report of the inspector who held the local inquiry, the decisiou of the official who in fact determiued the appeal, being based on such docnmen;s aud report. In January, I 9 I I , the Hampstead Borough Council made a closing order in respect of a certain dwelling-house, of which William Arlidge was the owner. The order was made pursuant to See. 17 of the Housing, Town-Planning, etc., Act, I9O9, and pursuant to Sec. 39 of that Act. Mr. Arlidge appealed against such order to the Local Government Board. The Board directed a local inquiry to be held, but the appellant did not attend, as he considered he had already given the Board all the information in his power. He, however, requested the Board to allow him an opportunity of being heard before the authority by whom the matter was to be determined. This request was not acceded to, and on July 29th the Board made an order dismissing the appeal. Previous to this Mr. Arlidge had applied to the borough council to determine the order, as he had done certain works. This the council had refused to do, and he thereupon appealed to the Board against such refusal. Another local enquiry was held, at which Mr. Arlidge was represented. This appeal was also dismissed by an order signed by the President of the Board and countersigned by an assistant secretary, without the appellant having had an opportunity of seeing the report made by the inspector who held the local enquiry, or of appearing before the person who decided the case. Mr. Arlidge then applied to the High Court for a rule nisi for a writ of certiorari with the object of having this latter order quaslwd as being illegal. After argument, a Divisional Court refused to make the rule absolute (see PUBLIC I-IEALTH, vol. 26, p. 253 ). From this refusal he
HEALTH.
105
appealed to the Court of Appeal, and this Court by a majority allowed the appeal, and quashed the order and directed the Local Government Board to determine the matter in manner provided by law. For the appellant it was contended (i) that he had a right to appear before the Board after the inquiry; (2) that the Board could not depute the determination of the matter to an official; and (3) that at any rate the appellant had a right to see and to answer the report of the inspector, upon whose report the decision was given. VAUGIIANWILLIAMS, L.J., said that the Board were exercising judicial functions, and that, unless it was otherwise provided by the Act of Parliament, they must act according to the principles of natural justice. In his opinion the nonproduction of these reports was contrary to these principles, and was a departure from the principles upon which the comnaon law of England was based. H e did not think the appellant had a right to put his arguments orally before the judge, but he was entitled, after all the documentary evidence and reports had been received by the Board, to place a written argument before the judge, and in that sense he was entitled to a hearing. He could not do this effectively unless he had an opportunity of seeing and considering the reports and the documents which the judge had before him. He thought the appeal ought to be allowed. He also thought that the decision should be an act done by the Board in substance, and not in form. BUCKr.EY,L.J., agreed that the report ought to have been disclosed. HAUZLTON, L.J., dissented. He thought the procedure was not so contrary to the principles of natural justice, that the appeal ought to be allowed. A more open procedure would be better, but he thought the appeal ought to be dismissed. OBSTRUCTING AN INSPECTOR.--In June last an information was laid by the Finchley Urban District Council against a Mr. Blyton for obstructing one of their inspectors in the execution of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 19o 7. A drain was alleged to be defective, and it was contended by the inspector that he had a right of entry to examine it on giving 24 hours' notice. Mr. Blyton refused him admission. The justices dismissed the summons on the ground that the inspector should have obtained an order trader Sec. lO2 of the Public Itealth Act, iS75 ; but stated a case. l'efore the case came on for bearing Mr. Blyton died. An application to the I[igh Court to hear the case notwithstanding his death was dismissed, and the case struck out by a Divisional Court on November I3th.
1913. LA\¥ R E P O R T S .
COURT OF APPEAL. October I6th, 1913. VAUGHAN \VILLIAMS, BUCKLEY, AND H.'~.',HLTON, L.j.j. REX v. TH~ LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD,CX parle
BEFORE
~RLIDGE.
Housing of the \Vorking Classes Acts--Closing Order--Refusal to d e t e r m i n e - - A p p e a l - Procedure of Local Government B o a r d - Non-disclosure of Inspector's Report. The Court held that an onter made by the Local Government Board dismissing an appeal by an owner from a refusal by a local authoH O, to deteVmine a closing order was im,alid, because the procedure of the Board on the hearing of such appeal was contrary to natural justice in that the appellant had had no opportunity of seein~ and of answering the documents and the report of the inspector who held the local inquiry, the decisiou of the official who in fact determiued the appeal, being based on such docnmen;s aud report. In January, I 9 I I , the Hampstead Borough Council made a closing order in respect of a certain dwelling-house, of which William Arlidge was the owner. The order was made pursuant to See. 17 of the Housing, Town-Planning, etc., Act, I9O9, and pursuant to Sec. 39 of that Act. Mr. Arlidge appealed against such order to the Local Government Board. The Board directed a local inquiry to be held, but the appellant did not attend, as he considered he had already given the Board all the information in his power. He, however, requested the Board to allow him an opportunity of being heard before the authority by whom the matter was to be determined. This request was not acceded to, and on July 29th the Board made an order dismissing the appeal. Previous to this Mr. Arlidge had applied to the borough council to determine the order, as he had done certain works. This the council had refused to do, and he thereupon appealed to the Board against such refusal. Another local enquiry was held, at which Mr. Arlidge was represented. This appeal was also dismissed by an order signed by the President of the Board and countersigned by an assistant secretary, without the appellant having had an opportunity of seeing the report made by the inspector who held the local enquiry, or of appearing before the person who decided the case. Mr. Arlidge then applied to the High Court for a rule nisi for a writ of certiorari with the object of having this latter order quaslwd as being illegal. After argument, a Divisional Court refused to make the rule absolute (see PUBLIC I-IEALTH, vol. 26, p. 253 ). From this refusal he
HEALTH.
105
appealed to the Court of Appeal, and this Court by a majority allowed the appeal, and quashed the order and directed the Local Government Board to determine the matter in manner provided by law. For the appellant it was contended (i) that he had a right to appear before the Board after the inquiry; (2) that the Board could not depute the determination of the matter to an official; and (3) that at any rate the appellant had a right to see and to answer the report of the inspector, upon whose report the decision was given. VAUGIIANWILLIAMS, L.J., said that the Board were exercising judicial functions, and that, unless it was otherwise provided by the Act of Parliament, they must act according to the principles of natural justice. In his opinion the nonproduction of these reports was contrary to these principles, and was a departure from the principles upon which the comnaon law of England was based. H e did not think the appellant had a right to put his arguments orally before the judge, but he was entitled, after all the documentary evidence and reports had been received by the Board, to place a written argument before the judge, and in that sense he was entitled to a hearing. He could not do this effectively unless he had an opportunity of seeing and considering the reports and the documents which the judge had before him. He thought the appeal ought to be allowed. He also thought that the decision should be an act done by the Board in substance, and not in form. BUCKr.EY,L.J., agreed that the report ought to have been disclosed. HAUZLTON, L.J., dissented. He thought the procedure was not so contrary to the principles of natural justice, that the appeal ought to be allowed. A more open procedure would be better, but he thought the appeal ought to be dismissed. OBSTRUCTING AN INSPECTOR.--In June last an information was laid by the Finchley Urban District Council against a Mr. Blyton for obstructing one of their inspectors in the execution of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 19o 7. A drain was alleged to be defective, and it was contended by the inspector that he had a right of entry to examine it on giving 24 hours' notice. Mr. Blyton refused him admission. The justices dismissed the summons on the ground that the inspector should have obtained an order trader Sec. lO2 of the Public Itealth Act, iS75 ; but stated a case. l'efore the case came on for bearing Mr. Blyton died. An application to the I[igh Court to hear the case notwithstanding his death was dismissed, and the case struck out by a Divisional Court on November I3th.