Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Norwich City Council: CA 1982

The judge had to consider a claim that a Housing Benefit Review Board lacked the appearance of an independent and impartial tribunal, and thus contravened the right to a fair trial on common law principles and under Article 6. The problem was that the Chairman and two other members of the Board were councillors of the City, the paying authority in the case. The issue before the Board was whether the applicant did in fact pay rent either to the landlord or his agent so as to qualify for benefit
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Pointing to section 11, the Norwich City Council said that the district valuer was like an appeal body. He should not be employed to make the initial valuation where he would sit on appeal from it to make the final valuation. That point impressed me much for some time. It seemed contrary to the accepted principle that ‘justice should not only be done, but should be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’: see per Lord Hewart C.J. in Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259 and F.G.C. Metropolitan Properties Co. Ltd. V. Lannon [1969] 1 QB 577, 599. But this principle-like that of natural justice-must not be carried too far. It is flexible and must be adapted as the case may require.
Mr. Simon Brown showed us good reasons why it did not apply here. The ‘district valuer’ is the valuation officer or the deputy valuation officer for the district: see section 27 (2) of the Housing Act 1980. His ordinary work is to make valuations for the rating list. The practice there is, as I understand it, for one of those in his office to prepare the draft valuation list: and then, if any ratepayer objects and proposes a different figure, for someone else in the office-the valuation officer or his deputy-to revise the valuation. That system is in accord with the Rating Acts. It works perfectly well in rating cases. A similar system is applied in these valuations under the Housing Act 1980. The initial valuation under section 10 (1) (on which the local council fixes the price) is made by one of the clerks in the office. If the tenant takes objection and refers the matter to the district valuer under section 11, then the decision is made by the valuation officer himself or his deputy. This system works perfectly well. That is shown by the fact that in 50 per cent. of the cases the valuation is reduced: and also by the even more striking fact that no tenant has ever taken any objection to the system. The only person to take objection has been Norwich City Council.
So justice is in fact done by reason of the final valuation being done by a senior officer quite distinct from the one who made the initial valuation. It is seen to be done by reason of the fact that no tenant has ever complained of it.’

Lord Denning MR
[1982] QB 808, [1982] 1 All ER 737, [1982] 2 WLR 580
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHenshall v General Medical Council and others CA 13-Dec-2005
The claimant had lodged a complaint against a medical practitioner. The preliminary proceedings committee had accepted evidence from the doctor, but had not given the complainant opportunity to see it and comment upon it.
Held: the rules must . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.237839