REGENT THEATRE LEASE

Chronicle (Levin), 1 October 1946, Page 4

REGENT THEATRE LEASE

■Press Association

Complicafions Result In Appeal

By Telearavh—

WELLINGTON, Sept. 30. The Court of Appeal today considered an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Wellington, in February, 1945, in an action brought by the Attorney-General (on relation of United Theatres Limited and Harry Muschamp Waddington, . of Petone, coinpany director) questionxng the validitj' of a eontraet between the Levin Borough Council, owners of tlto Regent Theatre, Levin, and Levin Amusements Limited through B. J. Kerridge, its mauaging director. The relators (not'e: It is necessary to sue as a relator through the AttorneyGeneral in any t-ase where the validity of an act of a local authority is questioned by- a person other than a ratepayen) were the lessees of the theatre from 1936 till 1943 wlxeil the lease expired and the council called tenders for a further lease. The relators tendered for a further lease and their tender was accepted but owing to a defeetive resolution of the. council,. such tender was found to be invalid, whereupon the council aceepted a tender by Levin Amusements Limited and Kerridge wherein they oft'ered to spend £300 on redecoration, to operate the theatre as rtgents of the council, and to pay the council 20 per cent. of the box ofiice revenue with a minimum of £1872 per annum. The relators brought proceedings for a deelaratioin that such a eontraet was ultra vires and restraining the council and Levin Amusements from operating the theatre under it. The judgment now appealed from granted this relief. After hearing the present appeal the Court will hear an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment in July last year, in an action by the AttorneyGeneral (on relation of Levin Amusements Limited and R. J. Kerridge) against the Borough Council foi +he enforcement of the eontraet between them by declaring the notice of its determination invalid or by restraining the council from acting on such notide or alternatively, for damages fOk breach of eontraet. The Supreme Co?8 p in this action granted no relief on t, p grounds that the previous judgment oi the Court had deciared the eontraet ultra vires.