COSTS AGAINST CROWN SOUGHT IN LAND DISPUTES

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 66, 18 March 1949, Page 3

COSTS AGAINST CROWN SOUGHT IN LAND DISPUTES

In the case of compulsory acquisition of land by the Government under the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act, 1943, the Crown should pay all legal valuation and other costs incurred by the landowner in the consequent legal proceedings. A resolution to that effect, passed by the Land Settlement Committee of Federated Farmers, has been the subject of considerable negotiations with the Government recently.

The Federation pointed out that even in cases where the Crown was unsuccessful in actions before the Land Sales Court (now the Land Valuation Court), the owner of the property was unable to recover the costs incurred in order to protect his right. In the opinion of the federation, landowners were entitled in action before the Land Sales Court to the same rights regarding costs as had litigants in Supreme Court actions. 1

In later representations to the Minister of Lands on this subject, the federation argued that it seemed that the Land Sales Court was not interpreting Section 61 of the Act in accord with Government intention.. That assumption was made as a result of complaints received from farmers, which complaints

Rangitaiki Axemean’s Sports SATURDAY, MARCH 19 Edgecumbe Domain

were checked by a search of Land Sales Court decisions (as reported in the Gazette Law Reports for 1947 and 1948) concerned with appeals against decisions of Land Sales Committees on basic values of properties. No case reported could be found where the Court had awarded costs a'gainst the Crown. That fact—that costs against the Crown have seldom been awarded in the Land Valuation Court —has been generally admitted by Government officials. While it does not appear possible to have Section 61 of the Act amended to make it mandatory on the Court to award costs against the unsuccessful party to any such action, the federation has received a statement by the Justice Department that the Land Valuation Court was always prepared to hear submissions regarding costs and would not hesitate to reconsider any attitude it might appear to have adopted in the past if proper representations were made to it at the hearing of any claim.