Stewart’s Gully Leases

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31081, 9 June 1966, Page 1

Stewart’s Gully Leases

(Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 8. The uncertainty surrounding the terms of leases at Stewart’s Gully is such that the situation can be resolved only by a court dealing with individual cases on their merits.

The Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) gave this opinion in a written answer in Parliament today to a question by Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon) Mr Mathison asked Mr Hanan whether he had investigated the problem referred to him by the Minister of Labour in July, 1965, concerning the rights of those holding leases at Stewart's Gully. If so. was he satisfied that the lease-

holders were adequately safeguarded under the terms of the Property Law Act, 1952? “Part VIII of the Property Law Act is concerned with the general principles of the law of real property which apply in the case of leases,” Mr Hanan said.

“It defines certain rights of lessors and lessees in regard to the contract they have entered into and provides certain formalities which must be observed in actions to enforce the covenants contained in leases.

"Subject to compliance with these formalities, the parties make their own contract, and it would not be proper for legislation concerned with general principles relating to the ownership of property to attempt to modify specific contracts.

“I have not seen a copy of the Stewart’s Gully leases,

which are unregistered, but it does appear that they are bare leases of the land with no specific rights of renewal. This being the case, the law of contract would prevail, and the lessees would be dependent on the lessor for any renewal once the leases had expired. “The ownership of the property is vested in a company, Stewart's Gully Holdings, Ltd. The obvious uncertainty surrounding the origin and terms of the leases creates situations which could only be resolved by a court dealing with individual cases on their merits to determine the rights of lessees under their contracts.

“There is certainly no case for consideration being given to altering the terms of the Property Law Act 1952, to except individual cases from principles laid down.”