HOSPITAL LEVIES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 280, 26 November 1932, Page 8

HOSPITAL LEVIES

BASIS OF CALCULATION j RULING OF SUPREME COURT COUNTY’S CASE FAILS ! \ALL EK GENERAL H'HELD •There is no provision for special action in dacermming the approximate value for the imormation of hospital boards oi tne Do minion, and I am of the opinion that tne practice adopted by the Valuer-General is in accordance with the Act, but, if lam in error, j it is at least an alternative con j struction, equally open; and there j can be no question that it is more ; consistent with the smooth work i ing of tha system.” ; With, this observation His Honuui, Mr. Justice Reed, has refused to-grant the Supreme Court order asked for by the Wanganui County Council to deter mine the correct procedure of the Valuer-General in arriving ai approxi- j mate values of rateable property within hospital districts tu enable hospital boards tu make annual levies upon contributing authorities. Il was the contention of the county that rhe present praciec, which did not permit it to benefit from a very substantial reduction, in valuation, which deli nitely became a fact when an Assessment Court certified to a valuation roll in September, was not within, the terms of existing legislation. It was argued that the Valuer-General must have been in a position to anticipate the big downward trend, and in furnishing to the hospital board an “approximately correct” valuation as at March 31, 1932. should have tarnished figures more in keeping with the reduced total which was afterwards certified to by the Assessment Court in September, 1932. His Honour's judgment completely upsets those contentions and holds that if such a practice was to be adopted it would cause confusion in administration, and would become impracticable in view of the vast amount of detailed clerical work that would be required in the Valuer General’s office to cope with the 47 separate hospital districts of the Dominion. His Honour holds that the present practice of bas--1 ing valuations on the roll as on April I 1 of the preceding year and corrected to September of that year, inflicts no hardship, in that what is lost this year would be gained in the next. The application was, therefore, refused and costs of £lO 10s and disbursements were allowed each uf the local bodies represented. Mr. T. W. Blennerhassett appeared to support, the Wanganui County’sap plication for an order; Mr. W. J. Treadwell acted for the Wanganui City Council, which had been joined in the action; Air. N. R. Bain, Crown Prose cutor at Wanganui, acted for the Valuer-General, and rvxr. N. M. Izard appeared for tiie VVa&gauul Hospital Board. “This is an originating summons whereby’ the plaintiff asks for an order ‘That upon the true construction of section 49 of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1926, awl for the purposes of the apportionment by the above-named defendant, the Wanganui Hospital Board, in accord auce with the provisions of the said section 49, of the net estimated expenditure of the said board for the financial year commencing on April 1, 1932 and ending ou March 31, 1933, the above-named defendant, the Valuer General, must report, as his determination as approximately correct, the capital value of the rateable property of the above : named plaintiff on April 1, 1932, as being the figures shown in the revised roll, namely the sum of, £2,298,159, ’” states His Honour. “All the contributory local bodies in the district of the Wanganui Hospital Board were served with the proceedings, but were not represented except as above stated. During the course of his argument Mr. Bain, on behalf of the Valuer-General, submitted that, the Crown, in the person of the Valuer General, could not be bound bv these proceedings, and further that in any case the Court should, in its discretion, refuse to make any declaratory order. These were not taken as pre liminary points and were not argued by the other counsel concerned, and as 1 have formed a definite opinion fav ourable to the Valuer-General on the real question in issue, 1 do not pro pose to deal with them, but will confine myself solely to the question of the construction of the Statute. Under the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1926, a hospital board is required to apportion, ihe net estimated expenditure for the ensuing financial year amongst the contributory local bodies in proportion to the capital value of the rateable property in each eontribu toiy district, and the. amount apportioned constitutes a debt recoverable by action. There is a right of appeal on various grounds to the Minister against the apportionment. Ln order to make the apportionment, it is pro \ ided by section 49 tiiat. the capital value is to be*; ‘As determined by the Valuer-General under the Valuation oi Land Act, 1925, as being approx? •nately correct as on the hrst day of April in the financial year in which Hie apportionment is made.’ “Ju accordance with this section the \ alucr-General determined the capital value as approximately correct on April I, 1932, of the thirteen contributory local bodies in the Wanganui Hospital District, and communicated in writing such determination to the Hospital Board which, thereupon, duh apportioned the contributions amongst Hie contributory bodies according to Ihe respective capital values of their inteable property. 'The plaintiff, the Wanganui County Council, owing to a revision of the Valuation Roll, which was completed in August, 1932, finditself in the position of having a greatly reduced capital value of the, rateable property in its district. The revision was made by direction of Ihe Governor-General-iu-Council under seelion 8 of the Valuation of Land Act, 1925, to be as at March 31, 1932. The County Council claims that the re vised valuation must be taken to have been in existence on April 1 and that Ihe determination by the Valuer-Gen-eral must approximate to such value and not to the value appearing on the valuation roll on April 1 before such revision. In Sharman Realties v. St. Michel (1924 A.C. 185), the Privy Council, by Lord Shaw, of Dunfermline, said (192):

‘ Where the words of a statute are clear they must, of course, be followed; but, in their lordships’ op/, ion, where alternative constructions are equally upon, that alternative is Lu be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating; and that alternative is confusion into the working of the system. ’ ‘‘lt is convenient Lu consider the case from that aspect. There are some 47 hospital districts in New Zealand, and in each district there arc numerous contributory local authorities. Every year the Valuer-General is re quired to determine and to supply Lo each hospital board tnroughout New Zealand an approximately correct statement of the capital value of the rateable property in each contributory dis--1 diet as on April J. It is necessary i for the certificate of the Valuer-Gen-i oral under section 49 to be given before April 18 (section 46 and clauses 7 (2) and 8 (2) of the 4th schedule of the Act), and there is no provision for a revision of such determination. The valuation supplied by the Valuer-General has been, ever since the legislation on the subject came into force, the amount shown on the Valuation Roll us ou April 1 of the 1 preceding year, corrected to iScptcm ber of tlial year. These are the last figures definitely ascertained by the \ aluer-General on April 1 of each year, and they so appear on the Valuation Roll as at that date. To require that he should estimate what alterations arc likely to be made by the Assessment Court, sitting approximately in the following August, and return that as the approximate value would be tu create confusion in the administration of hospital boards, and necessitate a substantial inciease in the clerical stall in the Valuer-General’s office. It would be impracticable. The present system works no hardship. Fur ex ample, in the case uf the present plaintiff, approximately, the same amount, that tlie Wanganui County is overvalued upon revision this year, it gained the. benefit 0? on a previous valuation. The on affidavit, states that the practice followed works substantial equity and continues: ‘lts effect is a twelve months lag in bringing the result of the new valuations into a hospital board's apportionments. The aim 01 the department is to effect a revision of every roll when the values of land in the district have materially altered since the previous revision. Each contributory loca> district gets in its turn tne disad vantage (in a time of rising values) of being assessed for the purposes of the Hospital and Charitable in stitutions Act, 1926, on a valuation ! revised more recently than those of other contributory local bodies, but the disadvantage is mitigated by the twelve months’ lag above referred to. Conversely, each contributory local district gets in its turn the advantage (in a time of falling values) uf being assessed for the purposes of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1926, on a valuation revised more recently than those of other contributory local districts, but the advantage is a deferred one by the twelve months’ lag above referred to.’ “Alternative constructions may be put on this section. Either the Valuer General is required to take as hi.basis, in determining the approximate value, the amount shown on the Valuation Roll at the date when he issues his certificate, or he is required to make a calculation as to the probable alterations that will be made month:afterwards by the Assessment Court, or otherwise. The roll is a continuing one and speaks from day to day •there is nothing in the legislation J show that, the v aluer-General wuulu fulfil his duty by giving a certifieo copy of a reviseu entry made suose quenl to that date,’ said Hoskiug J., in delivering the judgment of the l ull Court in McNab v. Commissioner of Taxes, 1919, N.Z.L.K., 267, 174. He is there referring to a section in the Valuation of Land Act, 1908, whirl l now is section 49 of the Valuation of Land Act, 1925, and which provides that: ‘Un application in the prescribed form, and on payment of the pre scribed fee, the V aluer-General shall. 1 in the prescribed form, supply to anv person a certified copy of any entry in the district valuation roll.’ “Ami the learned Judge proceeds: ‘lf a revision had been directed as at that date, but had not been iu fact made, there is nothing to warrant the Valuer-General iu refusing to give a certificate or in postponing it until the revision is ascomplisned. The fact that, with regard to certificates, provision is made lor special action in given cases justifies these conclusions. (See also County or Matamata v Maeratetai Farms, 19.16 G.L.R. 176, Dwan v. Lower Hutt, 1918 G.L.R. 188). “There is no provision for special action in determining the approximate value for the information of the hospital boards of the Dominion. I am of opinion that the practice adopted by the Valuer-General is in accordance with the Act, but, if I am in error, it is at least an alternative construction equally open; and there can be no question that it is more consistent with the smooth working of the system. Further, 1 think the determination of the Valuer-General is an administrative act. and in the absence of any suggestion of mala tidies is not open to attack; but It Is unnecessary 10 decide that. For the reasons I have stated, the order asked for must bn refused with costs. I allow to each of the local bodies represented, and the, Valuer-General, £lO 10s and disbursements.”