RATING LIABILITY

Hokitika Guardian, 10 June 1930, Page 6

RATING LIABILITY

CROWN’S PREROGATIVES

IMPORTANT TARANAKI CASE

i By Telegraph—Press Association)

NEW PLYMOUTH, June 9

Questions involving far-reaching consequences lor the Government and ior the rating authorities throughout New Zealand are raised on an originating su.unions, the hearing of which was commenced before Mr Justice Blair to-day. Shortly, he was asked to decide whether the Crown, as mortgagee, is hound by the Rating Act, and whether the local body conerned may sell land after obtaining udgment against the owner, i lie argument will he continued.

The property involved in the ease is a, farm of 57 acres in. the borough of Inglewood. It was owned by W. G. Marshall, the Crown being mortgagee. The rates were allowed to accumulate, and the question ol the payment- of the arrears of rates arose, 1.-ater the land was sold by the Crown to W. J. Idle, who as the purchaser, is concerned as to his liability, if any for the late arrears. Judgment lor the rates were obtained by the Council against Marshall. The Council proposed to proceed to sell the property under the provisions of the Rating Act in order .0 reimburse, it for the arrears, and the present proceedings are to determine whether the Council is entitled -lO go on with the sale.

• Counsel for the Crown said that lie was concerned with the defence of ;liree of the ancient prerogatives of the Crown—its immunity from rates, its right of priority of payment as between subject and Crown, and the freedom of Crown property from forfeiture. The main question appeared to be whether the Rating Act of 1925 hound me Crown.

Counsel for the Inglewood Borough placed the following facts before the Court Marshall had been on the rate roll since 1920. He paid rates up to Alaiieh 31st. 1925. He left the property in December, 1927. On March 2rth. I‘J2B, the local body obtained judgment for three years’ rates, 192528. The mortgagee’s attempt to sell ommenced in January 1928, and the mortgagee first granted grazing rights the- same month. There were now due rates for two additional .•ears. In .June 1929 the local body cook action under Section 79 of the Bating Act, and the Registrar served notice dealing with general rates. He submitted that they were payable, and ould be recovered by the Borough Council under the machinery clauses jf the Rating Act, unless the Crown proved: (1) that it was land vested in the King and that there was no owner or occupier other than the King; (2) that' the Council was prevented from pursuing its remedies under the Rating Act because it might affect property belonging to or vested in the Crown in accordance with Section 384 of the Municipal Corporation Act; (3) that the- Council was barred by Section 5 of the Acts Interpretation Act; or (4) that over and above any of the statutory provisions he had referred to, and apart from special rates, the Crown’s prerogative prevented recovery.