60 / 196
threatening behaviour at West Kirby railway station on 1st
May 1970 whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be
occasioned, contrary to Section 5 of the Act, and had quashed
their convictions.
Section 9 of the Act provides: " 'Public place* means any
highway, public park or garden, any sea beach, and any public
bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage,
whether a thoroughfare or not; and includes any open space
to which for the time being, the public have or are permitted
to have access, whether on payment or otherwise. 'Private
premises' means premises to which the public have access
(whether on payment or otherwise) only by permission of the
owner, occupier, or lessee of the premises."
[Cooper and Others v Shield; Q.B.D.;
The Times,
5th
April 1971; D.C.]
Tax
A loan by West Riding County Council to an employee to
attend a health visitors' course on condition that she worked
for the council for eighteen months after its completion when
the .loan would become irrecoverable, was held to give rise to
a liability to income tax as an emolument under Schedule E.
The agreement between the Revenue and the Royal College
of Nursing to exempt grants to student health visitors does not
cover such a case because the payment exceeded threequarters
of the student's salary and was not a scholarship.
[Clayton (Inspector of Taxes) v Gothorp; Ch. Div.;
The
Times,
31st March 1971; Plowman J.]
Plowman J. dismissed with costs an appeal by Mr. C. Morris
Owen, Denbighshire county surveyor, from a decision of the
general commissioners who disallowed a deduction of £485
from his taxable income in respect of expenses of travelling to
the World Road Congress in Tokyo in 1967 on the ground that
the expenditure was not incurred wholly, exclusively and
necessarily for the purposes of his office.
[Owen b Burden (Inspector of Taxes); Ch. Div.;
The
Times,
26th March 1971.]
Words and Phrases
Gash awards made to an employee by his employer, over and
above his remuneration, for passing professional examinations,
were held not to be remuneration for his services as an
employee and were not therefore liable to income tax under
Case I of Schedule E.
Higher prices for freeholds
Leaseholders, who qualify tp buy the freehold of their
houses under the Leasehold Reform Act, are facing
higher price demands from their landlords and in some
cases dogged resistance to selling, despite the law.
Landlords have been encouraged to hold out for
increased prices following a series of Lands Tribunal
decisions in their favour, when high modern ground
rents were assessed in the tribunal's fixing of the free-
hold price.
In one case recently county court action had to be
started against a landlord in North London who
refused to part with a freehold of a terrace house at a
price of £620 fixed by the Lands Tribunal.
The case—the first to test the powers of a leaseholder
under the Act to compel a landlord to sell him the
freehold land—was to have been heard at Clerkenwell
County Court on Thursday, but was settled last week
when the landlord backed down.
A spokesman for Davies and Davies, agents for the
landlords, a firm of accountants in the city, which
owned several properties in Ossian Road, North Lon-
don, said their clients believed they were entitled to
do everything possible to recover the money on the
property which they had bought as an investment and
which they were now being forced to sell at a loss.
High modern ground rents assessed in recent cases to
come before the Lands Tribunal were described to me
as "horrifying" by Mrs. Winifred Sims, a spokesman
for the Leaseholders' Association of Great Britain.
They tended, she claimed, to negate the purpose of
the Act, which was introduced by the last Government
to enable long lease-holders to buy the freeholds of
their houses at a price that excluded the value of the
bricks and mortar.
In assessing the price to be paid, the Lands Tribunal
has to calculate the value of the site to the landlord at
the expiry of the lease, subject to the tenant's right
under the Act to claim a fifty-year extension of his
lease. Modern ground rents are calculated as a stage
in valuing the site.
"It is producing harsh valuations for people with
leases nearing expiry," said Mrs. Sims. Those with a
substantial amount of their lease to run were little
affected.
Widows, who were looking to the fifty-year extension
instead of buying, could find themselves in the position
of having to ask the social services to pay their ground
rents to keep a roof over their heads, she said.
Modern rents were being assessed that were three
times the rateable value of the property. Yet to qualify
to buy a freehold under the Act, the present ground rent
did not have to be more than two-thirds of the rateable
value of the house and land.
It was causing "grave inflation" of land values at a
time when the Government wanted to keep prices in
check, she added.
In one recent case a modern ground rent for a
terrace house in South-West London was fixed at £450
a year, while the previous rent was £2.25 a year and its
rateable value £146. The price for the freehold was
fixed at £7,600.
Mrs. Sims said although there had been many favour-
able settlements for tenants, particularly in parts of
London and South Wales, she thought leaseholders
were being put off by the high prices asked by some
landlords and fears of having to take their case to the
Lands Tribunal if they could not reach settlement.
Cost of a Lands Tribunal case could be several hun-
dred pounds and in some cases tenants had been
forced to pay costs, even though they had succeeded in
getting the price demanded by the landlords much
reduced.
Since the Act came into force in January 1968 twenty-
seven cases had been decided by the Lands Tribunal.
Of the 246 cases lodged by the end of March, 142 had
been withdrawn or settled.
The Daily Telegraph
(3rd May 1971)
60