PLAINS RATE CASE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4347, 25 November 1921, Page 1 (Supplement)

PLAINS RATE CASE.

-—. —• COUNCIL V. J* HANDLEY. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. Reserved decision in the case of the Hauraki Plains County Council (Mr E. Walton) y. J. Handley, of Paeroa (Mr J. F. Montague), was given by Mr J. H. Salmon, &M., at Paeroa on Monday, as follows: The Hauraki Plains County is con- ! stituted by th# Hauraki Plains, Thames, Ohinemuri, and Piako Counties Act, 1919, and this Act came into force on the Ist day ofl April, 1920. The present action is brought to recover from the defendant the sum of £52 18s 9d for rates and interest for the period April 1, 1920, to March 31, 1921, in respect of certain lands of an area of 202 acres within the jurisdiction pf the said county. The facts, .which are not j n dispute, are admitted to be as follows: (1) The new County Council, upon the coming into force of the Act abovementipned was furnished by the Valuation Department with a fresh valuation roll, and the Council’s rate bopk was compiled from such valuation roll. This valuation roll showed the defendant as the occupier oE 202 . z acres as on April 1, 1920. (2) On September 17, 1919, defendant had entered into an agreement ■ with one W. G. Crosby for the sale to him pf 101 acres, the sale being subject to survey, and under that agreement the purchaser was entitled to possession on October, 1, 1919, (3) On the 25th March, 1920, notice of the transfer was given in pursuance ofS. 63 of the Rating Act, 1908, by Mr Porritt, the solicitor for, the vendor, to the Ohinemuri County Council, the then local authority. (4) On the Ist of April 1920, the plaintiff County Council came into existence as the local authority exercising jurisdiction over this rating area and was, furnished with the fresh valuation roll before mentioned. ,•(5) The rjates of the new County Council were struck on the 21st July, 1920, and a rate demand dated the Bth October, 1920, was sent to the defend- 1 ' ant demanding payment to the collector, the County Clerk, at the County office, Ngatea, within 14 days of the date thereof. (6) Late in the year (the date is hot given, but we may assume that -it was subsequently to the Bth of October) instructions were received by the plaintiff Council from the Valuation Department to alter defendant’s area to 58 acres and to charge William Crosby with 144 acres. Uppn these facts it was contended tor the plaintiff : . 1. That the valuation roll supplied ’ showed defendant as the occupier of these 202 acres, as on the Ist April, 1920, and that S. 26 of the Valuation of Land Act, 1908, applied. 2. That no notice of thesale to Crosby had been served on the plaintiff Council under S. 63 of the Rating Act, 1908 ; that notice to the Olhine- ■ inuri County Council was not; notice to the plaintiff Council. 3. That S. 27 pf the Valuation of Land Act, 1908, overrides any other section; that’ there is power in the Council to change a name on its roll but not to substitute two names an I to apportion the rates by making fresh assessments. 4. That .the rates were not struca until the 21st Ju(ly, 1920 i and that notice was not received from the Valuation Department as to the alleged transfer to Crosby of 58 acres until some time after the rates had been struck. For the defendant it was contended; 1. That the sale to Crosby of portion of this land was .subject to survey; that, although the date of the agreement was 17th September, 1919, the / sale or transfer was not. completed until March, 1920; that the words "sells dr otherwise transfers the same” mean upon completion pf the sale, i.e., when settlement takes place. 2. That notice of such transfer was given by the vendor’s solicitor on the 25th March, 1920, in terms o'? S.. 63 of the Rating Act, 1908, to the then proper local authority the Ohinemuri County Council. 3. That there was no statutory obligation on defendant tp dp more than notify the proper local authority,, 4. That the Ohinemuri County Council by letter of! . the 18th

May, 1920 (produced and admitted) notified the Valuation Department of thp sale to Crosby pf 101 acres 3 perches, that is to say two months before the rates were struck. Notice in .terms of S. 63 was given to the Ohinemuri County Council by letter dated the 25.thi March, 1920, and I think it is clear that this notice was properly given. It was contended that notice to the Ohinemuri County Council was hot notice to the plaintiff council, but the plaintiff council did n.ot come into existence until April 1, 1920, and the Ohinemuri County Council was on March 25, 1920, the‘only local authority to whom such notice could be given and properly so- given in compliance with S. 63 ; and in pursuance of that notice it appears that the Ohinemuri County Council on the 18th of May, 1920, wrote to the Valuation Department notifying the Department of the transfer of 101 acres 3 perches to Crosby, but it was not until late in the year that instructions were received by the plaintiff Council from the Valuation Department to alter defendant’s area to 58 acres apd to charge Crosby .with 144 acres. These figures appear to have originated in the Valuation Department, for there is no evidence that any such figures were ever supplied .to it. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff thaU although power is given to a local authority to change , a name on the roll, there was no power to substitute two names for one and to ap port ioh'.the rates by making a fresh assessment. That contention, however, cannot be wholly • correct, because by S. 27 Subsection (2). of the Valuation of ,Land Acit, 1908, power is given to a local authority to make alteration in a valuation roll as to changes of ownership or occupancy of which notice has been received by the local authority under S. 63 of the Rating Act, 1908, and S. 63 of the las t-fmen tinned Act refers to every owner or occupier of rateable property who sells or otherwise transfers the same or any part there-, of, and , this clearly, would at least give the local authority power to amend, its valuation roll by inserting an additional name, though it is true that no provision appears to have been made for assessing the proportions of the rates in such a case. The principal question for determination by this Court appears to be whetner defendant’s notice of the 25th March, 1920, is a sufficient notice in terms pf S. 63 of the Rating Ac. f , and, if sufficient, whether the effect of that Section is to relieve him of liability in respect of this- area of 101 acres 3 perches, transferred by him to Crosby. The point raised by counsel for the plaintiff that defendant’s notice was not given until 25th March, 1920, and was not, therefore given within one month after such sale or transfer, because the agreement for sale was dated 17th September, ,1919, is no importance, even if it were clear that such notice was to be given within one month after the date, of the agreement for sale, and ,npt within one month after the completion pf sale, because it is obvious that ,S 63 is directory and-not mendatory. This is’, I think, clear from the words which follow: “and until he give such notice he shall remain, liable for' all rates payable in respect of such property.” It does not appear that. the effect of this section has, ever been decided by authoritative ruling. It was apparently raised in the case pf Matamata County Council v. Maraetai Lands Company, 1916, G.L.R., 176, h t the case is decided on other grounds. The Mayor, etc.* pf Christchurch v. McLean Institute, 17 G.L.R, 127, which was relied on by counsel for the plaintiff, shows that rateable property properly on .the valuation roll at the time of making the rate did not. cease to be liable for the current year’s rates by reason of a change c-f status of the property under sub-sec-tidn j of section 2 of* the Rating Act, 1908, and is not relevant to the question now under consideration. Anderson v. Borough of Campbelltown, 15 G.L.R. 68, appears to be more in point, .but the only light thrown upon section. 63 is the passage in which His Honour Mr Justice Williams states: “As she had never given any written notice of the *sale

or transfer, as required by section 63 of the Rating Act, she remained liable under that section for all rates due cn the property” ; from which it would, be reasonable tp infer that if she had so given notice the liability might, in his Honour’s opinion, have been avoided.! It is, I think, clear that the defendant has taken al,l proper steps under section 63', and upless that section is .to be ignored I must hold that the effect of his notice is to relieve him from liability for these rates in respect of the area transferred, of which notice was properly given. The notice was given before the rating year commenced to run. There was power in the local authority, as already pointed out, to amend its valuation roll in accordance with such notice. The: whole difficulty in this case appears to have been due to the fact that a new local aultjhority came into existence on April 1, 1920, and in t)hc complications incidental to the taking over pf a new rating area, the notice of March 25, 1920, received by the Ohinemuri County Council, was not forwarded on to the new local authority, which compiled its rate book from the fresh valuation rolK supplied to it by (the Valuation Department in accordance with section 27 (sub-section d) of the Valuation of Land Act, 1908. The rate book, however, is hot conclusive evidence of rateability or occupancy, and these points may be raised in defence of an action for rates : Mayor, dltc., of Auckland y. Speight, 32 N.Z.L.R. 651. Moreover, the Ohinemuri County Council did not notify, the Valuation Department of the receipt pf defendant’s notice of) transfer until May 18, 1920, and the rates of <the new local authority were struck on July 21, 1920. As I have pointed out, there appears to be no method of assessing the amount of rates for which defendant remains liable, and I think, therefore, that the proper course is to enter a non-suit, leaving the plaintiff Council free to correct its valuation roll in terms of section 27 (subsection a) of the Valuation of Land Act, 1908, and to issue amended demands in terms off section 6 of' the Rating Amendment Act, 1913. Rating powers, as has often been pointed out, are the creation of Statute, and the demand is the basis. The plaintiff will be non-suited, ■but as it is clear that defendant’ is liabl.e 1 for park of these rates, though the proportion is not ascertainable, I do not think that the defendant should have his costs in the action.