Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an appeal by Thomas Thomson against a deliverance of the Dundee Police Commissioners, by which they disapproved of certain plans and sections submitted to them by the appellant with a view to the erection of new buildings in Dundee.

The Dundee Police and Improvement Consolidation Act 1882, by sections 121 and 122, requires persons intending to erect new buildings to submit plans and sections thereof to the police commissioners for approval, and prohibits the commencement of any new building until the plans and sections thereof, with or without modifications, have been previously approved of by the commissioners.

Section 28 ( e) of the Act incorporates section 63 of the General Police Act of 1862, which is in these terms—“The commissioners shall have power to form committees of their number, either with directions to report to the commissioners,

Page: 138↓

or for carrying the various purposes of this Act into execution, and to delegate to such committees the powers competent to the commissioners under this Act, in whole or in part, with regard to the subject which may be remitted, to name the convener, and to fix the numbers of such committees who shall form a quorum; and the convener who shall preside at such committees shall be entitled to a deliberative, and, in case of equality, a casting vote, and to convene the members by notices in the way he shall think most convenient.”

The Police Commissioners of Dundee, in terms of this section, had delegated their whole powers in regard to such matters as the erection of buildings to the Works Committee.

The Works Committee remitted the plans and sections submitted by the appellant to a subcommittee of their number, with powers. The deliverance appealed against was pronounced by this sub-committee in name of the Police Commissioners.

Argued for the appellant—The deliverance was issued by a sub-committee of the Works Committee on the legal hypothesis that they had power to do so under the statute. They had no such power. They could not represent the Commissioners, who could only be properly represented by the Works Committee. The Works Committee were the delegates of the Commissioners, and they could not re-commit their duties to others— Thomas v. Elgin, July 4, 1856, 18 D. 1204; Lord Advocate v. Sinclair,November 26, 1872, 11 Macph. 137.

Argued for the respondent—The Police Commissioners were not acting ultra vires in delegating their powers to the Works Committee. The statutory quorum acted, and the character of the statutory quorum was not altered by calling it a sub-committee. The appellant's argument was founded upon the words, not upon the substance of the enactment. There was no true delegation here. The delegation was contemplated by the Act, and that distinguished the present case from The Lord Advocate v. Sinclair, supra. Gillespie v. Young, July 20, 1861, 23 D. 1357. There was no true delegation unless a principal body re-committed to others its powers and duties, and retired itself from the consideration of them. The quorum consisted of competent men. The appointment of such committees secured despatch, and such procedure was therefore in the public interest.

At advising—