CO129-122 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [5-6] — Page 207

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

203

I am of opinion that both the owner and occupier of premises are so exempt.

as above described. There are two great principles applicable to this case which have from the earliest times prevailed as rules.

The first is that the Crown is exempt from all rates, unless bound by express provision; the other is that the Crown is not bound by an Act of Parliament and a fortiori by a Colonial Ordinance unless expressly named therein.

Taking these well-recognised principles as a guide, there can be no doubt that the occupier of the premises would be exempt from the payment of rates, because the person employed by yourself, acting in the service of the Crown, is the occupier. The only doubt which I entertained was whether, having regard to the peculiar language of the proviso in our local Ordinance, the owner could claim immunity from the payment of rates, on the ground that the premises were demised to the Crown. Looking, however, at all the circumstances of the case, more especially to the fact that if the owner of the premises could be held liable for the rates, the Crown would, in effect, have to pay them in the shape of increased rent, I am of opinion that the owner as well as the occupier of premises, during the time of the occupation, must be held exempt.

"True copy

(Signed) F. J. G.

D. B. G.

I have verified

(Signed) Henry John Ball

Edit History

2026-05-19 18:03:02 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

203 1 I am of opinion that both the owner and occupier of premises are so exempt. as above described. There are two great principles applicable to this case which have from the earliest times prevailed as rules. The first is that the Crown is exempt from all rates, unless bound by express provision; the other is that the Crown is not bound by an Act of Parliament and a fortiori by a Colonial Ordinance unless expressly named therein. Taking these well-recognised principles as a guide, there can be no doubt that the occupier of the premises would be exempt from the payment of rates, because the person employed by yourself, acting in the service of the Crown, is the occupier. The only doubt which I entertained was whether, having regard to the peculiar language of the proviso in our local Ordinance, the owner could claim immunity from the payment of rates, on the ground that the premises were demised to the Crown. Looking, however, at all the circumstances of the case, more especially to the fact that if the owner of the premises could be held liable for the rates, the Crown would, in effect, have to pay them in the shape of increased rent, I am of opinion that the owner as well as the occupier of premises, during the time of the occupation, must be held exempt. "True copy (Signed) F. J. G. D. B. G. I have verified (Signed) Henry John Ball EX

Baseline (Original)

# 203 1 I am of spinion that both the summer and occupier of premises are so exempt. aus above described. There are two great principles applicable to this case which have from the earliest times. ar rules prevailed The first is that the brown is exempt bom all rates, inlef bound by exprefs "provision; the other is that the brown is not bound by an act of Parliament and A " portion by a lectonial Ordinance unlefo expreply named therein. ab a Taking these well recognised principles guide, there can be mo doubt that the xccupier of the premises would be He exempt from the payment of rates, because the larown by yourself, acting in the service of the brown, is the occupier. doubt which I entertained The only was whether having regard to the peculiar language of the proviso in our local Ordinance, the owner could claim immunity from the payment of rates, on the ground that the premises were demised to the brown. Looking however at all the circumstances of the case, more that if the owner expecially to the fact, of the premises could be held liable for the rates, the brown would in effect, have to pay them in the shape of increased rent, I am of opinion that the owner as well ad the opinion of the • occupier of premises, during the time of the occupation must be held exempt. book "True copy (Signed) F. J. Gj. d. b. G. I have ve (Signed) Henny John 1 Ball EX

2026-05-19 18:03:02 · Baseline

View content

203

I am of spinion that both the summer

and occupier of premises

are so

exempt.

aus

above described.

There are two great principles applicable to this case which have from the earliest times.

rules

prevailed

The first is that the brown is exempt bom all rates, inlef bound by exprefs "provision; the other is that the brown is

not bound by an act of Parliament and

" portion by a lectonial Ordinance unlefo expreply named therein.

ab a

Taking these well recognised principles

guide,

there

can

doubt that

the xccupier of the premises would be

exempt from the payment of rates, because the larown by yourself, acting in the service

of the brown, is the occupier. doubt which I entertained

The only

was whether

having regard to the peculiar language of

the proviso

in our local Ordinance, the owner could claim immunity from the

payment of rates, on the ground that the

premises

were demised to the brown. Looking however at all the circumstances

of the case, more

that if the owner

expecially to the fact,

of the premises could be held liable for the rates, the brown would

in effect, have to pay them in the shape of increased rent, I am of opinion that the

owner as

well

the

opinion

of the

• occupier of

premises, during the time of the occupation must be held exempt.

book

"True copy

(Signed) F. J. Gj.

d. b. G.

I have ve

(Signed) Henny John 1 Ball

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.