Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende, Smith: HL 1978

It was said that the Arsenal football stadium was under-valued in local rating list. The House was asked who might be a ‘person aggrieved’ and entitled to complain about the under-valuation of a hereditament in the same area.
Held: A person liable to pay rates in the same area was entitled to challenge the valuation of another hereditament even if he could not show any financial or other loss to himself.
Lord Wilberforce said that ‘Uniformity and fairness have always been proclaimed and judicially approved as standards by which to judge the validity of rates.’
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘While it is true that words in the English language take colour from the context in which they are used, I see nothing in the subsection or in the remainder of the 1967 Act to warrant giving to the word ‘aggrieved’ any meaning other than its ordinary natural meaning. To be ‘aggrieved’ a person must be affected by the matter of which he complains.’

Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
[1979] AC 1
General Rate Act 1967 69(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.470546