Vandervell's Trusts v. Vandervell Trustees Ltd.</head> <body> <font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><a name="PL44"></a><a name="TERM0"></a> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>44 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><br><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="40%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="6%"></td><td width="88%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.justis.com/pdf2/lrpdf/ELR/S7030/S7030004.PDF" target="_blank">Original Printed Version (PDF)</a></font></p></td><td width="6%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table><br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">[COURT OF APPEAL] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>In re</i> VANDERVELL'S TRUSTS WHITE AND OTHERS v. VANDERVELL TRUSTEES LTD. AND INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">[1968 V. No. 935] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">1969 May 20, 21 </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Lord Denning M.R., Sachs and Karminski L.JJ. </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Practice - Parties - Joinder - Revenue - Dispute between executors and trustees - Result entailing tax consequences - Revenue willing to be party to decision having tax consequences - Application for joinder opposed by defendant trustees - Whether commissioners' presence "necessary to ensure ... all matters in dispute ... effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon" - <st>R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (b) </st><a name="L1"></a><a href="#FS11"><sup>1</sup></a> </i></font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Crown - Joinder - Proceedings between subjects - Whether jurisdiction to join "as necessary party" - Crown consenting and one party objecting - Fiscal issue - <st>R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (b). </st></i></font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">In 1961 the trustees of a family settlement made by V. in 1949 exercised an option to purchase from the Royal College of Surgeons shares in a company with which V. was concerned, which shares V. had caused to be transferred to the college in 1958. Between 1961 and 1965 the trustees received dividends exceeding £750,000 net on those shares. In 1965, during the course of proceedings in which the revenue claimed surtax from V. on dividends paid while the charity held the shares, on the ground that V. had not divested himself of his beneficial interest in the option, the shares, or the dividends thereon, V. executed a deed intended to transfer to the trustees any such interest as he might be held to have retained. In <a name="L2"></a>Vandervell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 A.C. 291, the House of Lords affirmed the assessment on V. to surtax on the dividends paid up to 1961 while the charity held the shares. V. died in 1967, and the commissioners, relying on the House of Lords decision. made an assessment on his estate for surtax in respect of the dividends received by the trustees between 1961 and 1965. The executors gave notice of appeal against that assessment; but the appeal was, by agreement with the revenue, stood over pending the determination of proceedings begun by the executors by originating summons in May, 1968, in which they claimed as against the trustees of the family settlement that the estate was entitled to the dividends received by the trustees between 1961 and 1965. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">In October, 1968, the executors obtained leave from the master under R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>)<a name="L3"></a><a href="#FS11"><sup>1</sup></a> to join the Inland Revenue Commissioners as second defendants to the originating summons against the trustees. The commissioners consented to be joined, but the trustees objected. Buckley J. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br> <a name="FS11"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">1 R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2): "At any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application ... (<i>b</i>) order any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon be added as a party." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL45"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>45 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">granted an application by the trustees to have the commissioners struck out. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">On appeal by the executors:- </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Held,</i> allowing the appeal, (1) that the court had jurisdiction under R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>) to order that the commissioners be added as a party to the proceedings in order that the issue whether the dividends belonged to the executors (thereby involving a fiscal liability in which the revenue was interested) or to the trustees might be "effectively and completely" determined by a decision binding on the commissioners; and as it was authoritatively settled that there was now no obstacle to joining the Crown as a party where the commissioner had consented to the joinder, the court should so order. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Per curiam.</i> The rule which gives the court power to join "any person whose presence ... is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute ... may be ... completely determined" should be liberally interpreted in order to give effect to the intention of the Judicature Acts that all parties whose rights would or might be affected should be brought before the court in one proceeding by which all would be bound, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of actions, the saving of costs, and the risk of differing conclusions on the selfsame issue (post, pp. <a name="L4"></a><a href="#PL56">56E</a>,<a name="L5"></a><a href="#PL57">57H - 58A</a>,<a name="L6"></a><a href="#PL60"> 60G</a>). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L7"></a>Byrne v. Brown (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 657, C.A. applied. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"> <a name="L8"></a>Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd. [1956] 1 Q.B. 357; [1956] 2 W.L.R. 372; [1956] 1 All E.R. 273 disapproved on this point. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">(2) That in the instant case the court's jurisdiction to allow the commissioners to be joined was not ousted by reason of the fact that a special procedure for determining fiscal issues between the subject and the Crown was provided by the Income Tax Acts, for the executors, who alone had an interest in electing to adopt that procedure in relation to the surtax claim, could waive and had waived that procedure, and as the trustees had no tax axe to grind, their objection to the present proceedings was unsustainable. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L9"></a>Barraclough v. Brown [1897] A.C. 615, H.L.(E.) distinguished. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L10"></a>Decision of Buckley J. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 437; [1969] 1 All E.R. 1056 reversed. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The following cases are referred to in the judgments: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L11"></a><i>Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.</i> [1956] 1 Q.B. 357; [1956] 2 W.L.R. 372; [1956] 1 All E.R. 273. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L12"></a><i>Argosam Finance Co. Ltd. v. Oxby</i> [1965] Ch. 390; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 774; [1964] 3 All E.R. 561, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L13"></a><i>Asher v. London Film Productions Ltd.</i> [1944] 1 K.B. 133; [1944] 1 All E.R. 77, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L14"></a><i>Attorney-General v. Avelino Aramayo & Co.</i> [1925] 1 K.B. 86, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L15"></a><i>Barraclough v. Brown</i> [1897] A.C. 615, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L16"></a><i>Blaise v. Blaise</i> [1969] P. 54; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1047; [1969] 2 All E.R. 1032. C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L17"></a><i>Bray v. Ford</i> [1896] A.C. 44, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L18"></a><i>Buxton v. Public Trustee</i> (1962) 41 T.C. 235. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L19"></a><i>Byrne v. Brown</i> (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 657, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L20"></a><i>Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Greene</i> [1964] 2 Q.B. 687; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 319; [1964] 2 All E.R. 761. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL46"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>46 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L21"></a><i>Gurtner v. Circuit</i> [1968] 2 Q.B. 587; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 668; [1968] 1 All E.R. 328, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L22"></a><i>Leek, decd., In re</i> [1967] Ch. 1061; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 576; [1967] 2 All E.R. 1160; [1969] 1 Ch. 563; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 1385; [1968] 1 All E.R. 793, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L23"></a><i>Pilkington's Will Trusts, In re</i> [1959] Ch. 699; [1961] Ch. 466; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 776; [1961] 2 All E.R. 330, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L24"></a><i>Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government</i> [1958] 1 Q.B. 554; [1960] A.C. 260; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 346; [1959] 3 All E.R. 1, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L25"></a><i>Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd.</i> [1947] A.C. 390; [1947] 1 All E.R. 469, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L26"></a><i>Vandervell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners</i> [1967] 2 A.C. 291; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 87; [1967] 1 All E.R. 1, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L27"></a><i>Westminster Bank Executor and Trustee Co. (Channel Islands) Ltd. v. National Bank of Greece S.A.,</i> July 24, 1968, unreported; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 468, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The following additional cases were cited in argument: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L28"></a><i>Abrahams' Will Trusts, In re</i> [1969] 1 Ch. 463; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1198; [1967] 2 All E.R. 1175. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L29"></a><i>Cornwell v. Barry</i> (1955) 36 T.C. 268. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L30"></a><i>Marsh v. Marsh</i> [1945] A.C. 271, P.C. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L31"></a><i>Midwood's Settlement, In re</i> [1968] Ch. 238; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1014; [1967] 3 All E.R. 291. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L32"></a><i>Mosev v. Marsden</i> [1892] 1 Ch. 487, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L33"></a><i>Result, The</i> [1958] P. 174; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 725; [1958] 1 All E.R. 839. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L34"></a><i>Soul v. Irving</i> (1963) 42 A.T.C. 424. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from Buckley J. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 437. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In 1949 the settlor, Guy Anthony Vandervell, made a settlement in favour of his children. In 1958, wishing to make a gift of £150,000 to the Royal College of Surgeons, he caused to be transferred to them 100,000 "A" shares in Vandervell Products Ltd., a private company manufacturing engineering products, of which he was chairman, managing director, and principal shareholder. The Royal College of Surgeons, on December 1, 1958, granted an option for five years to the trustees of the settlement, Vandervell Trustees Ltd., to purchase the shares for £5,000. It was intended that the £150,000 gift to the college was to be in the form of dividends paid on the shares held by the college. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On October 11, 1961, after amounts in excess of £150,000 had been paid to the Royal College of Surgeons as dividends, the trustees exercised the option and the shares were transferred to them. The £5,000 was paid by the trustees out of the funds of the 1949 settlement with the settlor's knowledge and approval. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The settlor was assessed to surtax on the dividends paid to the Royal College of Surgeons on the basis that the 1958 transaction amounted to a settlement of property of which he had not absolutely divested himself, and that, accordingly, he was not entitled to the benefit afforded by section 415 (1) (<i>d</i>) of the Income Tax Act, 1952. The assessment to surtax was subsequently confirmed by the House of Lords: <a name="L35"></a><i>Vandervell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners</i> [1967] 2 A.C. 291. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In respect of the period between October 11, 1961 (the date of the </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL47"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>47 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">exercise of the option), and January 19, 1965, the trustees received dividends on the shares amounting to £1,256,458 gross. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">By a deed dated January 19, 1965, after reciting, inter alia, that doubts had arisen as to whether or not the settlor had divested himself of all the interest in the shares, and that the deed was being executed for the resolution of such doubts, the settlor assigned and released to the trustees all such right, title or interest (if any) as he might have to or in the option or the shares, and to or in the dividends or income, to be held by the trustees upon the trusts of the 1949 settlement. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">By a will dated January 27, 1967, the settlor appointed the plaintiffs as his executors. He died on March 10, 1967. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">By an originating summons dated May 31, 1968, the executors claimed from the trustees payment of the net sum of £765,016 received by the trustees by way of dividends and capital distribution on the 100,000 "A" shares in Vandervell Products Ltd. in respect of the period October 11, 1961, to January 19, 1965, after deduction of the sum payable under the option with interest thereon. Alternatively, the executors sought a declaration that they were entitled to all moneys received by the trustees by way of dividend on the shares, an account of the dividends received, and payment of the amount found due. They contended that the trustees held the shares in respect of the period between October 11, 1961, and January 19, 1965, in trust for the settlor absolutely and that his estate was, therefore, entitled to the dividends received. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The Inland Revenue, on the basis that the settlor had not divested himself of the shares until January 19, 1965, made an assessment on the estate for surtax, in respect of the dividends for the period October 11, 1961, to January 19, 1965, amounting to £628,229. The executors gave notice of appeal against the assessment but, by agreement, the determination of those appeals was stood over pending the determination of the action against the trustees. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">By a letter dated August 9, 1968, the Inland Revenue Commissioners consented to being joined as defendants in the action, and on October 23, 1968, Master Heward, on the application of the executors, made an order under R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>), authorising the addition of the commissioners as defendants. The trustees issued a summons to strike out the commissioners as defendants. The summons was adjourned into court by the master. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Buckley J. on January 30, 1969 [1969] 1 W.L.R. 437, granted the trustees' application to have the commissioners struck out on the grounds (1) that the issues raised in the summons could properly be determined between the executors and trustees without the commissioners' presence and that the commissioners were, therefore, not persons who "ought to have been joined as a party" to the proceedings within the rule; and (2) that as the interests of the executors and the commissioners were largely identical and as the executors were disputing the case put forward by the trustees it could not be said that the commissioners' presence was "necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute ... may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon," so that the case did not fall within R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>), and the master should not have made the order. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL48"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>48 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The executors appealed on the grounds that the judge was wrong in law in holding (1) that the commissioners were not persons whose presence before the court was necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter might be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon, and (2) that, therefore, there was no jurisdiction under R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>), for the master's direction of October 23, 1968. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>A. J. Balcombe Q.C</i>. and <i>J. M. Chadwick</i> for the executors. The presence of the commissioners in the proposed action is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute between the executors and the trustees shall be completely determined, as R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>), requires. At the present time the revenue have a House of Lords finding in their favour, in <a name="L36"></a><i>Vandervell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners</i> [1967] 2 A.C. 291, that there was a resulting trust in favour of V. in the option in relation to the dividends for the first period. The question of entitlement to the dividends for the second period is the issue between the executors and the trustees (who were not parties to the House of Lords decision). The executors want the revenue as a party so that they will be bound by the court's decision in the proposed action: for if they are not bound and the executors lose, the question of surtax liability will still be open, whereas if the revenue are joined the issue of entitlement will be "effectually determined." The revenue consent to be joined, and the only reasons for the trustees' objections are that it will increase the costs, that they will be at risk of cross-examination by the revenue, and that if the executors win, the revenue may prosecute a separate appeal. Those are trivial reasons, particularly where very large sums of money are involved. The trustees also claim that there is no jurisdiction to join the revenue as a party; but there are a number of modern cases where the revenue have been joined in litigation between subjects. In <a name="L37"></a><i>In re Pilkington's Will Trusts</i> [1959] Ch. 699, this court itself ordered the joinder. In <a name="L38"></a><i>In re Leek, decd.</i> [1967] Ch. 1061, no objection was taken to joining the revenue. Judges in recent times have encouraged the practice of joining the revenue. [Reference was also made to <a name="L39"></a><i>Buxton v. Public Trustee</i> (1962) 41 T.C. 235, and <a name="L40"></a><i>In re Abraham's Will Trusts</i> [1969] 1 Ch. 463.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On the issue of jurisdiction on which Buckley J. appears to have based his refusal to allow the revenue to be joined, R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 4 would have applied to the instant case if the revenue had agreed to be joined initially, for a "common question of law and fact" arises as between the executors and the trustees on the one hand and the executors and the revenue on the other. No relief by way of declaration is asked for against the revenue because all the executors want is that the revenue shall be bound by the decision as between them and the trustees. The jurisdiction to join the revenue is clearly conferred by R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>), under which the master rightly made his order, because their presence is necessary to determine whether or not the testator was beneficially interested in the dividends which accrued on the shares between 1961 and 1965. The words of Lord Esher M.R. in <a name="L41"></a><i>Byrne v. Brown</i> (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 657, 666, on the object of the Judicature Acts, exactly fit the present case. The rule gives the court power to determine the rights of all parties in one proceeding and costs are also thereby diminished. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL49"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>49 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The courts at first instance appear to have given the rule a narrow interpretation: see <i>per</i> Devlin J. in <a name="L42"></a><i>Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.</i> [1956] 1 Q.B. 357; but the Court of Appeal has given it the wider and more liberal construction necessary to fulfil its intended purposes: see <i>per</i>Diplock L.J. in <a name="L43"></a><i>Gurtner v. Circuit</i> [1968] 2 Q.B. 587, 600-602. [Reference was also made to <a name="L44"></a><i>The Result</i> [1958] P. 174.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Secondly, the trustees acquiesced in the joinder of the revenue before the master and should not now be allowed to say that the master's order should be set aside. The trustees, having acquiesced in the joinder before the master, then took out a separate summons before the judge to have the revenue struck out. Buckley J. held, not that there had been a wrong exercise of the master's discretion, but that he had no power to add the revenue because they were not within the words of the rule. Even if it is a matter of discretion and not of jurisdiction, the judge could have exercised his discretion not to set aside the master's order after the trustees had acquiesced in it. [Reference was made to <a name="L45"></a><i>Marsh v. Marsh</i> [1945] A.C. 271, 285, P.C., <i>per</i> Lord Goddard C.J.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>B. L. Bathurst Q.C</i>. and <i>Michael Miller</i> for the trustees. The point on the trustees' acquiescence in the master's order should not be entertained on the appeal since it is not a ground of appeal. The trustees in fact never consented. The application to the master was made with only two solicitors' clerks present and Buckley J. declined to treat the fact that the matter was not argued before the master as an effective consent by the trustees to the joinder. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The main and sole issue is whether the revenue should be joined as a party to the proceedings between the executors and trustees. The trustees, who are not bound by the House of Lords decision in favour of the revenue, object to the joinder. They do not seek to challenge the House of Lords decision in the proposed action where the subject matter is a different set of dividends for a different period and involving surtax for different years. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The proposed action raises one question only: Do the dividends for the years 1961 to 1965 belong to the estate or to the trustees of the family settlement? That is a straight issue between subjects; and the only possible interest of the revenue is that if the executors win they will face a large claim for surtax and a smaller claim for estate duty. The interest of the revenue will be adequately safeguarded by the executors and their advisers. They should not be separately represented or joined when they have no separate interest requiring to be determined in these proceedings. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Though the matter comes before the court in interlocutory form it raises a wide and very important matter of principle, for in almost every action in which there is a dispute as to the ownership of property the revenue have an interest in the result. For example, if there is a question whether the income from a trust belongs to A or B and A is rich and B is poor, there may be a large surtax claim if A wins and no tax claim at all if B wins. Are the revenue to be joined as a party because they can claim such an "interest" in the result? Even in a divorce petition the revenue may have an interest in the tax element because the income of a husband and wife are aggregated for tax purposes. In the present proceedings no relief is claimed against the revenue and they are not even a party to the appeal so that they are not properly before the court. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL50"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>50 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Two questions arise for decision: (1) Is there any jurisdiction to add the revenue as a party in a case like the present? (2) If there is jurisdiction, is this a case in which they should be added, having regard to the words of the rule? Buckley J. found it unnecessary to deal with (1) because he decided under (2) that they were not "necessary" parties within the words of the rule because the interest of the executors and the revenue were the same. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On the wider issue under (1), the Court of Appeal in <a name="L46"></a><i>Asher v. London Film Productions Ltd.</i> [1944] 1 K.B. 133, decided that there was no jurisdiction to bind the revenue. The revenue matter cannot be adjudicated upon save by the special procedure laid down in section 229 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, for the determination of disputes between the subject and the revenue in relation to surtax - by assessment, appeal to the special commissioners who find the facts, and appeal by case stated by the commissioners to the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords on a point of law: see section 64 (9) and <i>Simon on Income Tax</i>, Vol. I (1964-65 ed.), p. 328. The executors have already availed themselves of that statutory procedure by lodging appeals against the surtax assessment. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">[SACHS L.J. There are many cases where the Crown agrees to be bound by a judicial decision in order to take a short cut.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Even by agreement it is not possible to get a decision which binds the revenue save by using the procedure laid down in the Income Tax Act. It is conceded that in <a name="L47"></a><i>In re Pilkington's Will Trusts</i> [1959] Ch. 699, the revenue was joined; but everyone there consented to joining the revenue for convenience since no one wanted to argue the case on appeal in the sense favourable to the revenue; and it is now submitted that it was incorrect to allow the revenue to come in. The court can always ask the revenue to attend as amicus curiae. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to (2), the question whether the revenue should be a party cannot depend on whether they feel inclined to consent. Either there is power under the rule to add them or there is not; and if there is power, the court must be able to order them to be joined whether they consent or not. [Reference was made in <a name="L48"></a><i>In re Midwood's Settlement</i> [1968] Ch. 238.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">If there is jurisdiction to add the revenue under the rule, this is not a case in which it should be done. Three conditions have always been satisfied before the revenue are joined as a party: (1) all the parties must consent to their being brought in; (2) there must be no question of fact in dispute; and (3) no party to the proceedings should have an interest in arguing a point which might assist the revenue. Applying those conditions here: (i) the trustees do not consent; (ii) there are a number of facts in issue. As the House of Lords decision does not bind the trustees the executors cannot rely on the facts in that decision to support their case against the trustees but must prove the facts on which they rely to the satisfaction of the court; (iii) the only interest of the revenue is that the executors shall succeed: if they do, it will be on the footing that the 1961-65 dividends belonged to the deceased V. in his lifetime and the estate would then be liable for the surtax. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The trustees are entitled to stand on their rights and they say that the revenue's presence is not necessary. The most important consideration is </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL51"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>51 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">that if the trustees succeed the executors might well not appeal; but if the revenue are a party they might wish to take it further and the trustees might have to pay the costs of additional appeals. If Devlin J. was right about the scope of the rule in <a name="L49"></a><i>Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.</i> [1956] 1 Q.B. 357, where he applied the Court of Appeal decision in <a name="L50"></a><i>Moser v. Marsden</i> [1892] 1 Ch. 487, this is clearly a case where it does not apply. <a name="L51"></a><i>Gurtner v. Circuit</i> [1968] 2 Q.B. 587, was, as Buckley J. said in the present proceedings, [1969] 1 W.L.R. 437, 441, a case where there was no one before the court to argue the plaintiff's case unless the bureau, which would eventually have to meet the claim, was brought in. It is distinguishable. What Lord Greene M.R. said in <a name="L52"></a><i>Asher v. London Film Productions Ltd.</i> [1944] 1 K.B. 133, 137, applies equally today and is binding on the Court of Appeal. [Reference was also made to <a name="L53"></a><i>Westminster Bank Executor and Trustee Co. (Channel Islands) Ltd. v. National Bank of Greece, S.A.,</i> <i>per</i> Donaldson J. (unreported at first instance, July 24, 1968).] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Michael Miller</i> following. The suggestion that if the executors fail the revenue will proceed against them on the surtax assessments is unreal. Only one case is discoverable where the courts have determined property rights as between subjects in litigation and the revenue has sought to go behind the court's decision, and that was the case of Mr. Soul - [ <a name="L54"></a><i>Soul v. Irving</i> (1963) 42 A.T.C. 424] where the Crown's view was that the litigation was collusive. There is no collusion in the present case; the parties are at arm's length, and the issue of ownership of the dividends is hotly contested. If it were "necessary" to join the revenue in this case it would open the floodgates in many other cases. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>J. P. Warner</i> for the commissioners. The attitude of the commissioners on the question whether they should be joined as defendants is neutral; but the revenue approach and practice should be made clear. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">First, the revenue does not automatically accept the effect of the court's decision in every case between subjects. They look at each case to make sure that no piece of evidence which should have been put in was left out and that every point of law which should have been argued was argued; and though in general they incline to accept a decision made in their absence that acceptance is not automatic. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Secondly, the revenue practice is not to take active steps to intervene in litigation between subjects. But where there is no objection by the parties and it seems sensible, consent is normally given for the revenue to be joined. The average is about two cases a year. The requirement of consent is necessary because the revenue may have information from one source or another which is not in the parties' possession and might find themselves in the position of giving away confidential information which should not be disclosed without a party's permission. Moreover, the different procedure may involve a reversal of the burden of proof - a very important factor, because the revenue often start with no knowledge of the facts. The submission for the trustees, that if R.S.C., Ord. 15, r. 6, applies, the joinder of the revenue cannot depend on the revenue consenting to be joined is untenable, for the reasons given by Donaldson J. in the <a name="L55"></a><i>Westminster Bank</i> case (unreported at first instance, July 24, 1968). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The requirement of consent is not a matter of Crown privilege. The </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL52"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>52 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re L. H. F. Wools Ltd. (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">taxpayer shares that privilege; his consent is as important as the consent of the revenue; for example, if liability to tax depends on facts which the taxpayer wishes to keep confidential. The court should be told that the outcome of the proposed action will affect liability not only to surtax but also estate duty and stamp duty. The problem of the taxpayer does not arise in relation to estate duty, because the procedure for estate duty questions is by originating summons direct to the court, and any number of parties can be joined. But in the case of surtax and stamp duty, where there is a special statutory procedure available to the taxpayer, the consent of the taxpayer and the revenue is necessary to waive that proceedure and proceed by originating summons in the High Court. Those are the only consents necessary. The trustees, not being the relevant taxpayers, their consent is not necessary. If the trustees' objection is to succeed they must satisfy the court that the revenue was improperly or unnecessarily made a party within Ord. 15, r. 6 (2). There is no rule that the procedural requirements of the Income Tax Acts cannot be waived: <a name="L56"></a><i>Attorney-General v. Avelino Aramayo & Co.</i> [1925] 1 K.B. 86 and <a name="L57"></a><i>Cornwell v. Barry</i> (1955) 36 T.C. 268. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The matter does not turn upon whether there is a dispute of fact between the subjects. Indeed, such cases may be those in which joinder is most valuable. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The surtax appeal is already on foot before the special commissioners. It would be very unsatisfactory if there were conflicting findings of fact in the two sets of proceedings. There are three possible cases: a pure point of law; a point of construction; and an issue of fact. In the pure point of law case where no facts are in issue, the position, if the trustees' submissions are right, would nonetheless be that there could be an originating summons as between the executors and the beneficiaries and an appeal by case stated from the special commissioners as between the Crown and the executors, and both could come on for hearing before the same judge at the same time. In the point of construction case a halfway house between an issue of fact and one of law - the outcome may depend not only on the wording of the document but also on the surrounding circumstances at the time it was executed. In such a case there might be nuances between the ways in which the facts as to the surrounding circumstances were expressed in the evidence on an originating summons and in a case stated, and the judge might be faced with a situation where his conclusion would differ according to those nuances. If a distinction is to be drawn, as the trustees say, between cases raising issues of primary fact and those raising issues of construction or law, it is difficult to see how it would work out in practice. It is a matter of degree. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">While the revenue do not wish to depart from their basic attitude of neutrality, they do want to save this consent jurisdiction for other cases, and their approach is summarised as follows: (1) the consents required are the consents of those entitled to use the statutory procedure and of no others: (2) no distinction is to be drawn between cases where there is an issue of fact and those where there is not, and (3) the revenue may be joined even where there is already a party having the same interest as that of the revenue. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL53"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>53 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">After the comments of Lord Greene M.R. in <a name="L58"></a><i>Asher's</i> case [1944] 1 K.B. 133, 137, there were discussions between Lord Greene and the then Attorney-General, Sir Donald Somervell, the upshot of which was that if the court thought fit it could invite the Crown in a proper case to appear as amicus. In <a name="L59"></a><i>Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd.</i> [1947] A.C. 390 that was done. The procedure which has developed since the last war in the Chancery Division of joining the revenue as a party was not there referred to. In the four recent cases where the revenue has been joined it has been with the consent of all the parties. While it is no part of the revenue's submission to say whether or not the party not interested in the fiscal aspect can object to the joinder, the jurisdiction is valuable and it is hoped that it may be preserved. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Balcombe Q.C</i>. in reply. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">[SACHS L.J. referred to <a name="L60"></a><i>Blaise v. Blaise</i> [1969] P. 54, 62, and the consideration there given to <a name="L61"></a><i>Bray v. Ford</i> [1896] A.C. 44, where the legislature had designated a particular tribunal and the court upheld the right of the litigant to have that tribunal determine his litigation.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">That is precisely in point. The taxpayer and the revenue here have the right to use the statutory procedure for surtax and their consent is necessary if that procedure is waived. They have elected to waive it in this case. The trustees cannot rely on the existence of the statutory procedure because it does not concern them. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On the question whether under Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>), the jurisdiction can be invoked to bring in the Crown only when the Crown consents, there is a useful analogy with the case of a foreigner outside the jurisdiction who consents to submit to the jurisdiction, as was pointed out in the <a name="L62"></a><i>Aramayo</i> case [1925] 1 K.B. 86, 101. Once a person becomes amenable to the jurisdiction, the court will consider only whether the rule applies in the particular case. [Reference was made to <a name="L63"></a><i>Argosam Finance Co. Ltd. v. Oxby</i> [1965] Ch. 390.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On the trustees' objection that the revenue have an economic interest in almost every property case, the practical answer is that the revenue would not consent to be added unless their presence is necessary to ensure that justice is done. There is no fear of the floodgates being opened. The figures given by the revenue show that consent is given about twice a year. The revenue are properly before the court on the present appeal since notice of appeal was served on them by the executors. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The suggestion that the revenue will normally accept a decision of the court in proceedings to which they are not a party is refuted by the present summons, for if the revenue would assure the executors that they would accept the decision of the court about the ownership of the dividends there would be no need for the present appeal. One good reason why the revenue would not accept a decision to which they were not a party is that they have a House of Lords finding in their favour. That will again be in issue though in relation to different years, for the trustees will say that the option was always vested in the children's settlement. The executors want the revenue a party so as to be bound if the executors lose against the trustees, and the revenue's presence is necessary to ensure that the right to the dividends shall be effectually determined and so prevent a multiplicity of actions and save costs. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL54"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>54 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Bathurst Q.C</i>. in reply. <a name="L64"></a><i>Barraclough v. Brown</i> [1897] A.C. 615, is authority for the general proposition that where a statutory procedure has been provided, the parties cannot come to the High Court for a declaration, even though both agree to that course. That decision also shows that the distinction drawn in the <a name="L65"></a><i>Argosam Finance Co.</i> case [1965] Ch. 390, was impermissible. In <a name="L66"></a><i>Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd.</i> [1947] A.C. 390, no one objected to the Crown being joined, but counsel for the Crown, who stated what the practice was at that time, also said that the revenue would recognise any court decision as binding on them. That practice is apparently and unfortunately no longer followed. In the <a name="L67"></a><i>Aramayo</i> case [1925] 1 K.B. 86, the point was not that the commissioners had no jurisdiction at all, but that their jurisdiction arose only after certain procedural formalities had been complied with; the taxpayer waived compliance with the formalities and therefore could not object to the commissioners' jurisdiction. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The practical position here is that there is a live issue between the executors and the trustees which will be fought to a finish. The revenue has confidential information about the testator's tax affairs which they cannot disclose; but they are willing to assist the executors in any way the executors wish; and if the trustees succeed, it is most unlikely that the revenue will not accept the result. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Balcombe Q.C</i>. in reply. <a name="L68"></a><i>Barraclough v. Brown</i> [1897] A.C. 615 is distinguishable on its special facts, for there the plaintiffs were trying to recover expenses in the High Court which were recoverable only under the statute. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">LORD DENNING M.R. Twenty years ago, in 1949, the late Mr. Vandervell made a settlement on trust for his children and descendants. The trustees were a company now known as Vandervell Trustees Ltd. Ten years later, in November 1958, Mr. Vandervell transferred 100,000 "A" Ordinary shares in a company of his called Vandervell Products Ltd. to the Royal College of Surgeons. A day or two later, on December 1, 1958, the Royal College of Surgeons gave Vandervell Trustees Ltd. an option to purchase those 100,000 shares for £5,000. The option was not exercised at the time by the trustees. During the next two or three years, from 1958 to 1961, the dividends on those 100,000 shares were received by the Royal College of Surgeons. These dividends came to £250,000. On October 11, 1961, Vandervell Trustees Ltd. exercised the option. They paid £5,000 to the Royal College of Surgeons, and the shares were transferred to Vandervell Trustees Ltd. Thenceforward for the next four years, from 1961 till 1965, the dividends were paid to Vandervell Trustees Ltd. They came to £11/4m. gross, before tax. In 1965 Mr. Vandervell executed a deed by which he assigned any interest which he might have in the option or the shares to Vandervell Trustees Ltd. upon trust for the children under the settlement which he had arranged as far back as 1949. Then on March 10, 1967, Mr. Vandervell died. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There has been litigation as to who was beneficially entitled to this option from 1958 to 1961. The House of Lords decided that there was a resulting trust in favour of Mr. Vandervell himself. The case, <a name="L69"></a><i>Vandervell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners,</i> is reported in [1967] 2 A.C. 291. The </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL55"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>55 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Denning M.R. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">revenue say that that decision governs the position subsequent to 1961 until 1965: so that Mr. Vandervell himself was entitled beneficially to the dividends which were paid to the trustees between 1961 and 1965. They came to £1¼ million. The revenue say that Mr. Vandervell was liable to pay surtax on that £11/4m., and, now that he has died, the executors should pay it. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">But Vandervell Trustees Ltd. claim that these £1¼ million were their dividends. They were received by them from 1961 to 1965. They held them as trustees, they say, for the children, and they, as trustees, are not liable to pay surtax. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Those issues have resulted in two separate sets of proceedings against the executors: on the one hand, the revenue claim against the executors for surtax on the dividends of £1¼ million, on the ground that they belonged to Mr. Vandervell. They have made an assessment on the executors: and the executors are appealing against it. On the other hand, the Vandervell Trustees Ltd. claim that, as between them and the executors, the dividends belong to the Vandervell Trustees Ltd. The executors have issued an originating summons in Chancery so as to determine to whom the dividends belong. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">So Mr. Vandervell's executors are being shot at by two marksmen. They are being shot at by the revenue for surtax on the basis that the dividends belong to Mr. Vandervell. And they are being shot at by Vandervell Trustees Ltd. On the basis that the dividends belong to Vandervell Trustees. It is plain that there ought not to be two separate proceedings running alongside one another in which the selfsame issue is involved. If they go along separately, neither contestant would be bound by the other decision. The revenue would not be bound by a decision as between the executors and Vandervell Trustees; and the trustees would not be bound by the decision as between the revenue and the executors. If each of those proceedings were allowed to go on separately, it is quite possible that there might be different results. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In order to avoid any such situation, the executors of Mr. Vandervell in this originating summons have made an application for the Inland Revenue Commissioners to be joined as defendants, so that they may be bound by the decision and so that it may be decided as between the three parties concerned whether the dividends belonged to Mr. Vandervell and hence to his executors, or whether they belonged to the trustees. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The first question is whether or not the court has any jurisdiction to entertain this application. As long ago as 1944 Lord Greene M.R., in <a name="L70"></a><i>Asher v. London Film Productions Ltd.</i> [1944] 1 K.B. 133, expressed the view that the Crown could not be brought in and he regretted it. He said, at p. 137: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"I have often thought that in cases of this kind it is extremely inconvenient that the Crown (which is vitally interested) cannot, under the existing procedure, be made a party, or otherwise appear." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">And recently in <a name="L71"></a><i>Westminster Bank Executor and Trustee Co. (Channel Islands) Ltd. v. National Bank of Greece S.A.</i> [unreported at first instance]; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 468, C.A. (which we had before us a day or two ago), Donaldson J. on July 24, 1968, expressed the same view. He thought </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL56"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>56 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Denning M.R. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">there was no machinery by which the revenue could be joined in a proceeding between subjects, however just and convenient it might be. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">A great deal of water has passed beneath the bridges since 1944. There have been several instances where the commissioners have been joined, and no objection taken. In 1947 the House of Lords themselves in <a name="L72"></a><i>Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd.</i> [1947] A.C. 390, 394, invited the commissioners to come in if they wanted to contest the matters which might affect them, thus showing that the House regarded it as being perfectly proper. In <a name="L73"></a><i>In re Pilkington's Will Trusts</i> [1961] Ch. 466 it was very necessary and desirable that the case for the revenue should be put forward. The Court of Appeal, on the motion of the plaintiffs, ordered the commissioners to be added as parties: see p. 469. They were so added, and themselves appealed. There is also <a name="L74"></a><i>In re Leek, decd.</i> [1969] 1 Ch. 563, and four or five other cases in which by consent the commissioners have been added as parties. The reason is because it is so obviously the just and convenient course. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is apparent, therefore, that the inconvenience noted by Lord Greene M.R. in 1944 has been remedied. The joinder is permitted by R.S.C., Ord. 15. Rule 6 (2) (so far as material) says that: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"At any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application ... (<i>b</i>) order any person ... whose presence before the court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon be added as a party, ..." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Those words should be given a liberal construction. Lord Esher M.R. said as much in <a name="L75"></a><i>Byrne v. Brown</i> (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 657, 666: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"One of the chief objects of the Judicature Acts was to secure that, wherever a court can see in the transaction brought before it that the rights of one of the parties will or may be so affected that under the forms of law other actions may be brought in respect of that transaction, the court shall have power to bring all the parties before it, and determine the rights of all in one proceeding. It is not necessary that the evidence in the issues raised by the new parties being brought in should be exactly the same; it is sufficient if the main evidence, and the main inquiry, will be the same, and the court then has power to bring in the new parties, and to adjudicate in one proceeding upon the rights of all the parties before it." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">That wide interpretation was adopted and applied by this court in the recent case, <a name="L76"></a><i>Gurtner v. Circuit</i> [1968] 2 Q.B. 587. I know that there have been cases at first instance (such as <a name="L77"></a><i>Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.</i> [1956] 1 Q.B. 357; and <a name="L78"></a><i>Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Greene</i> [1964] 2 Q.B. 687, when the rule has been given a narrow interpretation. But that narrow interpretation should no longer be relied upon. We will in this court give the rule a wide interpretation so as to enable any party to be joined whenever it is just and convenient to do so. It would be a disgrace to the law that there should be two parallel proceedings in which the selfsame issue was raised, leading to different and </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL57"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>57 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Denning M.R. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">inconsistent results. It would be a disgrace in this very case if the special commissioners should come to one result and a judge in the Chancery Division should come to another result as to who was entitled to these dividends. Such different and inconsistent results are to be deplored and avoided. It can be done by bringing all parties before the court so as to have the issue finally decided between all of them and so that all be bound. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Bathurst pressed another point before us. He said that under the Income Tax Act, 1952, there is a prescribed procedure for the recovery of tax, namely, section 229. It is by assessment, by appeal by case stated to the court, and so forth. He said that there is no jurisdiction in the court to allow any other procedure, even by consent. He relied particularly on <a name="L79"></a><i>Barraclough v. Brown</i> [1897] A.C. 615. All I would say - and I have had occasion to say it before - is that that case depended entirely on the construction of a particular statute. It is of no general application. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the courts of law is never to be excluded except by very clear words. That appears from <a name="L80"></a><i>Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government</i> [1958] 1 Q.B. 554, 567; [1960] A.C. 260. It is true that in <a name="L81"></a><i>Argosam Finance Co. Ltd. v. Oxby</i> [1965] Ch. 390 the Court of Appeal struck out an originating summons which asked for a declaration as to income tax liability: but that was because of the special circumstances of that case. It was an abuse of the process of the court. That does not apply to the present case. I am clearly of opinion that, at any rate where the commissioners consent, the court has jurisdiction to decide questions as to liability to tax without going through the procedure of the Income Tax Acts: and it can authorise the commissioners, with their consent, to be added as parties to existing proceedings whenever it is desirable to decide tax matters so as to bind all concerned. This is supported by <a name="L82"></a><i>Attorney-General v. Avelino Aramayo & Co.</i> [1925] 1 K.B. 86 when Bankes L.J., at p. 101, drew the parallel of a foreigner who voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I say nothing as to what the position would be if the commissioners did not consent. But I am not to be taken as saying that the court would have no jurisdiction. The court may have jurisdiction, even without their consent, for the rule is wide enough to permit it. Suffice it that here the commissioners consent to be joined. The taxpayers - the executors of Mr. Vandervell - want them to be joined. It is true that the Vandervell trustees do not agree and indeed firmly object. But their objection should be overruled. The just and convenient course is for the issue - to whom do these dividends belong - to be decided by the courts in one proceeding. That can be done by joining the commissioners as parties. It is to be noted that no relief is specifically claimed against them. But the importance of joining them is that they will be bound by the result. For instance, if the Vandervell trustees won the case, the revenue could not afterwards come down on the executors for surtax. I would allow the appeal accordingly, and allow a joinder. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">SACHS L.J. I start my approach to the issues raised upon this appeal by recording that I too respectfully adopt what has just been said by my Lord, Lord Denning M.R., citing Lord Esher M.R. in <a name="L83"></a><i>Byrne v. Brown</i> </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL58"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>58 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Sachs L.J. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(1889) 22 Q.B.D. 657, 666, as to the necessity of adopting a broad view of the construction of Order 15, rr. (4) and (6). I would venture to add that Lord Esher in the course of his judgment also said: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"Another great object was to diminish the cost of litigation. That being so, the court ought to give the largest construction to those Acts in order to carry out as far as possible the two objects I have mentioned." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It seems to me that anything that will diminish a multiplicity of actions is something which will diminish the cost of litigation: accordingly that factor should be taken into account when construing the above rules. It follows, of course, that I respectfully differ from so much of the judgment of Devlin J. in <a name="L84"></a><i>Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.</i> [1956] 1 Q.B. 357 as would tend to a narrow construction. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In the instant case the same issues arise as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, on the one hand, and the plaintiffs and the Inland Revenue, on the other. As regards the plaintiffs and the Inland Revenue, the issues affect the plaintiffs' liability as executors in three matters: the first, surtax payable by the deceased; the second, estate duty payable in respect of the deceased's estate; and, thirdly, to a smaller extent, a matter of stamp duty. It would indeed be no tribute to our legal system if those issues could not be determined in the course of a single set of proceedings as between the plaintiffs, the defendants and the revenue. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As regards estate duty I understand that any question of liability as between the plaintiffs and the Inland Revenue can in the normal course of events be determined by process commenced in the Chancery Division, neither the subject nor the Crown being bound to adopt some special code of procedure. Thus, taking the estate duty position on its own to start with, to my mind none of the reasons advanced by the Vandervell Trustees Ltd., whom I will call the trustees, seem to me to establish that the court has no jurisdiction to order that the Inland Revenue be joined as a defendant. I adopt in that behalf the reasoning of my Lord, the Master of the Rolls. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As regards the question whether, had there only been a surtax issue between the plaintiffs and the Inland Revenue, this court could follow the same principles, there has been raised a special point. This relates to the effect of those provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1952, and in particular sections 229 and 64, which set out a code of procedure for determining the subject's liability. That those provisions form a special code of their own is, of course, clear. Under that code the subject has the right to have questions of fact determined by the commissioners: questions of law come up to these courts but under a prescribed route. That the subject and the Crown can waive their rights to the benefits of such a code and agree to be bound by a decision of the same courts when the problem reaches the courts by another route seems to me to be plain, though Mr. Bathurst, relying on <a name="L85"></a><i>Barraclough's</i> case [1897] A.C. 615 contested that proposition. In short, the statutory code available in this case does not preclude the parties agreeing to a differing procedure, and it is indeed for the courts to welcome that different procedure when it provides a short cut through a multiplicity of proceedings. It follows, accordingly, that the course adopted </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL59"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>59 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Sachs L.J. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">in <a name="L86"></a><i>Pilkington's</i> case [1961] Ch. 466 and in <a name="L87"></a><i>Leek's</i> case [1969] 1 Ch. 563, was fully justified. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I must now pause for a moment to deal with the question of <a name="L88"></a><i>Barraclough's</i> case on which so much reliance was placed by the trustees. It not only concerns a very special statute, but it came to be decided by the House of Lords in a very curious way. The statutory undertakers under the Aire and Calder Navigation Act, 1889, issued a writ seeking to recover expenses incurred in removing a sunken vessel: their claim in essence depended not on common law but on certain statutes which provided a remedy recoverable only in a magistrates' court. No declarations were claimed. The defendant owners alleged that the sinking was due to the negligence of the undertakers: they also raised the point of law that as their ownership had been abandoned before the action was brought, the undertakers had no right against them. Without first dealing with the issue of negligence, an order was nonetheless made for the point of law to be determined - a course to which apparently the plaintiffs did not object. The result, of course, was that negligence being still in dispute and the remedy being exclusively a matter for a magistrates' court, the point of law was really hypothetical so far as the High Court was concerned. So the plaintiffs were seeking from the High Court either a remedy which the magistrates' court alone could give, or, if a declaration were to be claimed (which was not the case on the pleadings), that declaration would be on a hypothetical point which might never have arisen if the remedy had been sought in the proper court. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Mathew J. decided the point of law against the undertakers and on appeal by them the Court of Appeal affirmed his decision. When, however, the matter came before the House of Lords the jurisdiction point was raised by their Lordships during the submissions on behalf of the undertakers. (The owners were not called upon.) Lord Herschell said, at p. 620: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"I do not think the appellant can claim to recover by virtue of the statute, and at the same time insist upon doing so by means other than those prescribed by the statute which alone confers the right." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">That refers to the fact that the case was one in which the remedy was being pursued in the wrong court. There are indeed strong statements in the speeches to the effect that even a declaration could not in any event have been sought: to my mind, however, they should be construed bearing in mind the basic facts in that particular case, where, incidentally, the declaration then being sought was hypothetical. For my part, I agree with my Lord, the Master of the Rolls, that it was a very strong case on a particular statute and should not be applied to the case now before us. To use the phrase employed by Viscount Simonds in the <a name="L89"></a><i>Pyx Granite</i> case [1960] A.C. 260, 286: "circuity is not necessary" here. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Now I return to the procedure adopted by consent in the <a name="L90"></a><i>Pilkington</i> and <a name="L91"></a><i>Leek</i> cases; the fact that this is justified and indeed commendable does not mean that procedure differing from that laid down by the Income Tax Act code can be forced on the subject so as to deprive him of the benefits of that code. Thus at any rate when facts are in issue and ought normally to be determined by the commissioners, there can be no question of the subject being compelled under the provisions of Ord. 15. r. 6. or otherwise to </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL60"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>60 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Sachs L.J. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">forgo that benefit. The right of the subject to a decision of a designated tribunal was recently stated by me, albeit in very different circumstances, in <a name="L92"></a><i>Blaise v. Blaise</i> [1969] P. 54, 63 in the terms: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"that, when the legislature has designated a particular tribunal, such as a jury or [justices], to determine a case, the appellate court must not debar the litigant from having that tribunal's determination." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">That statement flowed from an examination of <a name="L93"></a><i>Bray v. Ford</i> [1896] A.C. 44, and the speech therein of Lord Watson who referred, at p. 49, to the constitutional and legal rights of litigants. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In the instant case, however, Mr. Warner, on being pressed on this point, was able to assure the court that so far as surtax was concerned, there was no issue that the trustees could take to the commissioners. Moreover, Mr. Bathurst at no stage in his careful submissions suggested that there was a point which he wished to take or should take to the commissioners in relation to surtax. Accordingly there is nothing as regards the instant case in the existence of this special code of procedure to prevent the court exercising its discretion if it thinks fit under Ord. 15, r. 6, to order a joinder. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Turning finally to the question of discretion, each of the factors put forward by Mr. Bathurst naturally requires to be given consideration and due weight - not least that raised as to the incidence of extra costs and the possibility that the presence of the Inland Revenue might lead to additional appeals. Points which might on other sets of facts result in an order for joinder being refused or only being granted on special conditions do not seem to me to weigh sufficiently in this particular case to prevent the joinder being ordered. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There may be other cases where relatively small sums are involved. Here, however, the sums involved are of real magnitude and the costs which may flow from the litigation recede in importance compared with the advantages gained by the joinder which is sought by the plaintiffs. In any event the courts have a discretion as regards costs and would and should exercise it with great care in framing orders relating to the subsequent costs of this type of litigation so as to ensure that the unwilling party to a joinder is not unnecessarily penalised. On the facts of this case it appears to me that the order striking out the second defendants should be reversed and the appeal allowed. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">KARMINSKI L.J. I agree, and only desire to add a very few observations of my own. First, I would like to look once more at the operative rule, namely, Ord. 15, r. 6 (2) (<i>b</i>), which lays down the test that it is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined. I would like to emphasise my respectful concurrence with all that has fallen from my Lord, the Master of the Rolls, about the need for a liberal construction of those words. If all the facts and the necessary law relevant to those facts are before the court in a dispute, whether it be of a tax matter or any other issue in litigation, it seems to me that not only is it convenient but it is necessary to ensure that the court is likely to arrive at a correct conclusion; or if that is too ambitious a test, to be less likely to be led into error. In my view, therefore, </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL61"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1970] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>61 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Ch. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>In re Vandervell's Trusts (C.A.) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Karminski L.J. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">applying either test, it seems to me abundantly clear here that it is desirable and indeed necessary that the Inland Revenue should be parties to this litigation. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The only other matter that I would touch on is to express again my complete and respectful agreement with what Sachs L.J. has said about the relevance of <a name="L94"></a><i>Barraclough v. Brown</i> to this case. The history of that case he has already described and how the matter apparently was raised by their Lordships themselves in the House of Lords in the course of argument by eminent counsel who appeared there for the appellant. The point there depended on the construction of a special statute, that is, on the construction of section 47 of the Aire and Calder Navigation Act, 1889, which dealt with the removal of obstructions in narrow waters by the harbour or river authority concerned. The section is one which I venture to think is quite common in special Acts of this kind and is no doubt designed to effect the immediate removal of wrecks, without having recourse to litigation by the authority to determine liability arising from negligence or otherwise, in order to resume at the earliest moment navigation in narrow waters. But I have obtained no help, in spite of Mr. Bathurst's careful argument, in applying what their Lordships said in that case to the facts and the issues before us in this appeal. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I agree that this appeal must be allowed. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="40%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="82%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Appeal allowed with costs. </i></font></p></td><td width="6%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="82%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Application to strike out commissioners as defendants to action dismissed. </i></font></p></td><td width="6%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="82%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Leave to appeal to House of Lords refused. </i></font></p></td><td width="6%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Solicitors: <i>Allen & Overy; Culross & Co.; Solicitor, Inland Revenue.</i></font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">M. M. H. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <note></note><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">[HOUSE OF LORDS] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">1969 July 10 </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn and Lord Wilberforce </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">Petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in <a name="L95"></a><i>In re Vandervell's Trusts,</i> ante, p. 44. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">The Appeal Committee allowed the petition. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font> </body>  <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> var sc_project=725110; var sc_partition=6; var sc_security="f8a2fd19"; </script> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js"></script><noscript><a href="http://www.statcounter.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://c7.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=725110&java=0&security=f8a2fd19" alt="counter statistics" border="0"></a> </noscript>  </html>