2.
28
I may add, that it is the practice of local architects when
making valuations to obtain from this Office the assessments
of the properties concerned.
4. Mr. Ip's contention in his paragraph 3 is absurd. It
is not necessary, though perhaps advisable, for an owner even
to engage a solicitor in making an appeal to the court.
In any
case a very moderate cost would suffice. It is only in cases
where knotty points are involved that it may be advisable to
engage a barrister.
5.
Mr. Ip has not even bothered to look up the Ordinance,
for had he done so he could not have made the statements contained
Sections 28 and 16 to 23 cover appeal against
in his paragraph 4.
an interim valuation.
The appeal is to the Supreme Court in its
summary jurisdiction, and not to the Governor in Council. Notice
of an appeal must be lodged with the Registrar of the Supreme
Court within 21 days of the service of notice of the valuation
(under Sections 28 (2) and 16 (1) ), and then, under Section 19,
"the appellant shall prosecute his appeal within one month from
the expiration of the aforesaid twenty one days, and, if he fails
to do so his right of appeal shall lapse." The notice of valuation,
in Form 4, for this property was sent on 16th November, 1938. No
notice of appeal to the court was given, neither was any attempt
made to prosecute such an appeal within the prescribed periods.
The ten days mentioned in this fourth paragraph of
Mr. Ip's letter refers to the Form 1, which is sent out under
Section 4 (1) to owners, in order to obtain the return of certain
particulars required in making the assessment. Form 1 is laid
down in the Schedule to the Ordinance and contains a footnote which,
in part, states that "If the above information is not furnished
within ten days, no appeal from the assessment will be allowed. "
Section 21 (3) provides that an appeal shall not be entertained where
it is shown to the satisfaction of the judge that the appellant
neglected to supply the information required, in Form 1, within ten
days of the demand for the same.
The Assessor had power under Section 6, in this case,