COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 793, 16 April 1910, Page 14

COURT OF APPEAL.

. "I'. . 'N ■ : CISBORNE HARBOUR LEASES. : AN INTERPRETATION. The last case to come before the Court of Appeal alt the present sittings was heard yesterday by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr.- Justice . Edwards, and Mr. Justice Chapman. It was an appeal brought by the Gisborne Harbour Board in respect of portion of a judgment delivered "in the Supremo Court at Gisborne, by Mr. Justice Sim, ,on November 24 last. The respondents were 'IVank Brayton Barker," and Percival Barter, sheepfarmers, of Gisborne.

Mr. T. W. Stringer, K.G. (of ChristehuTch), with him Mr. M. Myers, appeared for the Harbour Board; Mir. C. P. Skerrett, K.G., with him Mr. G. Stock (of Gisborne), "for the respond- ■■.. ■' '..,■ ■ .-■. •■ ■''"' •■ '

The matter ..., with which the appeal was 'connected had come before Mr. , Justice Sim- in the form of an originating summons, the Harbour Board appearing as plaintiffs. The board on that occasion asked the Court .to interpret two leases which had been granted.-.by: the Harbour Board, and had become vested in Barker brothers. The term of the. leases was 21 years, to date from July 1, 1890. Several questions, had.been decided by the Court, but the appeal was concerned with only'one point, as follows i—Under both leases,..,' Barker brothers had a right of renewal for a further term ■of 21 years. . The. rent for the. further rterny if 'any, was" to be fixed by ar:bitrators, acting in accordance with tho iprovisions of the Arbitration Act.; The leases made provision that Barker brothers, if they elected to take a renewal,, should not' be entitled at the end of the further terni, to be paid any compensation for improvements effected by; them. If, however,".''.they chose not to renew, they were ;to/;be paid for improvements up to value «f 10s. per acre. One 'of.'the questions , submitted to: the Court in ' the originating summons had been: ,"On what basis is' the rent of the renewed lease to be .fixed? Is it to be on the improved or nnimprpved valne : of the' land?"' Mr. Justice Sim had' determined that the Arbitrators ought to determine whsfl; would be a fair rent, without taking into consideration any of the improvements made by the lessees, and that it was open to them, if they thought fit, to aidopt' the method specified in 45ection;..151:'of..the Land Act,- 1885, namely, to fix the rent at; five per cent, on the value of the land less the value of all improvements effected by the.lessees. The appeal'brought by the Harbour .Board was confined to this; matter: '■' . . : ■ .

Mr. Stringer contended tihat the ■ proper basis upon'which the'rent for the renewed term- should be fixed was the capital 'value of the land, or, in the alternative, 'the; value of '.the intef- • est which the. boaid' had 'therein—the capital'value, less a sum.not exceeding 10s. per acre,' which Barker brothers would be paid for their improvements, ,if they elected not to take a renweal. iiAs a; further alternative, Mr. Stringer argued that, the rental should be based on the market leasing value of the .land. ■ ■'.'' ' '' ."•■' : ' ; '-. '; : "- ' Mr. Skerrett said that . the leases were of. the typo known,. as Glasgow leases, and the rental ought to be } fixed on the basis of the unimproved Talue of the land. -]■'■"■■/'.■■ .■):"■. The Court reserved its decision.