Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This Special Case was presented by the County Council of Renfrewshire, first parties, and Robert Binnie and others, trustees for the Orphan Homes of Scotland for Destitute Children, second parties, to determine a question of assessment.

Page: 139↓

The Special Case stated that the second parties were, as trustees foresaid, heritably vested in certain subjects in Kilmalcolm parish, known as “The Orphan Homes of Scotland for Destitute Children.” These subjects are entered in the Valuation Roll for the current year at a cumulo rental of £1950, and, with one or two trifling exceptions, are entered in the said roll as occupied by “trustees for managers and children,” the proprietor being described as “The Orphan Homes of Scotland, per Wm. Quarrier here.” (Stat. 7) … “The whole premises and the whole contributions received, which constitute the entire income of the Homes, are exclusively devoted to the gratuitous education and maintenance of children of the poorest classes whose natural guardians have either died or have abandoned or neglected them.”

Mr Quarrier, as representing the second parties, appealed against the consolidated rates assessed on them by the County Council in respect of the ownership and occupancy of said property, and maintained that the whole of the consolidated rates should be discharged in respect that the subjects were owned and occupied solely for charitable and religious purposes. (Stat. 9)—“The Rates Appeal Committee of the County Council, before whom Mr Quarrier was heard in support of the appeal, were mot aware of any authority for giving relief from the rates unless possibly that contained in the Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act 1869, but being desirous as far as possible to give effect to the appeal, they gave him the benefit of any doubt that might exist on the terms ‘Ragged School,’ and held it to extend not only to the subjects entered in the valuation roll under the description of ‘school,’ but to all the subjects assessed except the superintendent's house, and they accordingly discharged the occupier's rates on the whole subjects (except that house), amounting to £58, Os. 7d., and refused the appeal so far as regards the proprietor's rates, amounting to £81, 6s. 11 1 2d.” (Stat. 10)—“Mr Quarrier being dissatisfied with the decision of the Rates Appeal Committee, appealed to the County Council, and at a meeting of County Council held at Paisley on 14th March 1895 he was heard in support of his appeal.… The County Council could not accept the interpretation put upon the Act of 1869 by Mr Quarrier, and a motion was proposed that the appeal be refused, to which an amendment was proposed and carried that ‘a Special Case be submitted to the Court of Session by the Council and the appellant, in order to ascertain the extent, if any, to which the Council have power to relieve the property referred to of assessments, and that after the decision of the Court has been got, the appeal be dealt with by the Council, and relief given to that extent.’ Mr Quarrier stated that he acquiesced in this course.”

The following questions were accordingly submitted for the judgment of the Court:—“1. Have the County Council, as a rating authority, any power, statutory or otherwise, to relieve the property referred to, or any part thereof, of the whole or part of the consolidated rates levied by them? 2. If they have such power, to what extent may relief be given—(a) From the consolidated rates levied in respect of the ownership of the subjects? and ( b) From the consolidated rates levied in respect of the occupancy of the subjects?”

The Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. c. 40), section 1, enacts that “Every authority having power to impose or levy any rate upon the occupier of any building or part of a building used exclusively as a Sunday school or ragged school may exempt such building or part of a building from any rate for any purpose whatever which such authority has power to impose or levy.” Section 2 defines “Sunday school” and “ragged school.”

The Court having at the outset of the discussion raised the question of the competency of this Special Case, the second parties craved leave to amend the case by substituting the two following questions for those which, as above set forth, originally appeared in the case:—“(1) Are the subjects assessed a Sunday school and ragged school, or a Sunday school, or a ragged school, within the meaning of the Act? (2) If so, have the first parties, as a rating authority, power to relieve the said subjects or any part thereof—(a) From the consolidated rates levied in respect of the ownership of the subjects? or ( b) From the consolidated rates levied in respect of the occupancy of the subjects? ”

Argued for the second parties—This case was competent. The test of competency was that one of the parties should be entitled to declarator; and here the second parties would be entitled to declarator, the conclusions being (1) that these subjects were Sunday schools, or ragged schools, or both; (2) that the County Council had power to exempt; and (3) that the County Council must apply its mind to the question of exemption. A declarator of the meaning of a particular Act of Parliament was not incompetent, wherever the pursuer wished and had an interest to have that meaning declared— Edinburgh and Glasgow Radway Company v. Meek, November 23, 1849, 12 D. 153; Leith Police Commissioners v. Campbell, December 21, 1866, 5 Macph. 247; Hogg v. Parochial Board of Auchtermuchty, June 22, 1880, 7 R. 986.

Counsel for the first parties were not called upon.

At advising—