The Gazette 1955-58

before the Central Land Board that the development value must be ascertained on the basis of his plan of development. The board held that the plan was not a factor which should be taken into account and estimated the development value at so much per foot frontage on the roads, assessing it at £44,500. The appellant, pursuant to the provisions of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, appealed to the Lands Tribunal. The tribunal held that the board was wrong on its basis of assessment and that the appellant's contention was right. The tribunal assessed the development value at £102,500, holding that the appellant in framing his claim had not taken into account the delays and risks inherent in putting the plan into operation. The tribunal made no order as to costs. The result of that order was that the appellant had to bear the tribunal's hearing fee of £500 which under paragraph 52 of the Lands Tribunal Rules, 1949, was payable by the appellant as claimant, without prejudice to his right to recover the amount from any other party by virtue of any order as to costs. The appellant appealed from the decision of the tribunal with regard to costs :— HELD by the Court of Appeal (Lord Evershed M.R., Denning and Romer L.JJ.) (i) that where a claimant disputed the development value fixed by the Central Land Board and took the question of the proper development value to the Lands Tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, the proceedings before the tribunal were an " appeal." (2) That section 3 (5) of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, showed that the award of costs was in the discretion of the tribunal and that the power of the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal as to costs from an order of the tribunal was not limited by the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and 'might be somewhat more open than an appeal as to costs from the High Court. (3) That the tribunal failed judicially to exercise the discretion vested in it, since it, in directing itself, omitted to consider : (a) that the proceedings were in the nature of an appeal and not an arbitra tion ; (b) that the appellant's view of the basis of valuation was right and that of the Central Land Board was wrong. (4) That, the parties consenting, the just order was to direct the Central Land Board to pay one half of the appellant's costs, including one half of the hearing fee. Per curiam. While as a matter of administrative convenience it is sensible that one party should be

to quit, claims a

If a tenant, who has been given notice

tenancy, and an application has to be made

new

there should be no

the Court to fix the rent,

to

costs awarded on either side. The tenant of a studio and room, who had been given notice to quit, claimed a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. The landlord agreed to grant a new lease, but the parties could not agree on its terms, the landlord putting forward a rent of £350 per annum and the tenant putting forward a rent of £200 per annum and asking that the landlord should enter into a repairing covenant and put in new power points. On an application to the county court under s. 24 (i) of the Act, the court made an order for a new lease at a rent of £300 without the landlord's entering into a repairing covenant or providing new power points. The landlord was ordered to pay one half of the tenant's costs, the judge basing his order as to costs on analogy with the consequence of a defendant's paying into court, in an action, less than was ultimately recovered against him. On appeal by the landlord, HELD by the Court of Appeal (Denning, Hodson and Morris L.JJ.) that in making the order as to costs the court should consider the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the offers on each side, and there was no true analogy with the position where a defendant paid money into court; in the circumstances the proper order was that there should be no costs on either side. Per Denning, L.J. :—It seems to me that it is wrong to draw any analogy with a payment into court. It would mean that the landlord, if he wanted to save the costs of the hearing, would have to offer the precise figure of rent which the county court judge afterwards determined to be the right figure, or a lesser sum. That would be quite an unreasonable thing to ask a landlord to do. In cases of this kind, it seems to me that the court should consider the reasonableness or un reasonableness of the offers on each side. (Le Witt v. Cannon Brookes—(1956) 3. All E.R. 676). Liana's Tribunal must exercise its discretion on appeal to fix costs judicially. The appellant owned an estate near Epsom Downs and in 1948 he obtained planning consent for its development as a garden city in accordance with a plan which had been prepared for him by an expert. He claimed under section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the sum of £217,517 for development value. He contended