RATING CHALLENGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 830, 26 November 1929, Page 14

RATING CHALLENGED

MT. ALBERT’S CHANGE OF SYSTEM

PREPARATION OF NEW ROLL Claiming that the Mount Albert Borough Council was acting illegally in levying rates on unimproved values on an old valuation roll, a ratepayer, .Mrs. Sophia Louisa Taylor, applied to the Supreme Court yesterday for an injunction restraining the council from collecting the rates struck for 1929-30. Mr. Justice Biair was on the Bench. Decision was reserved. r pHE unimproved values rating system tvas adopted iu the borough by a ratepayers’ poll on April 27, 1927. Mrs. Taylor based her objections to the council’s action on tile charge that no new valuation roll, required under the Rating Act, on which to assess rates on unimproved values, had been prepared and that the council had not applied to the ValuerGeneral for the roll. She also contended that no facilities had been given for lodging objections and that the rates were levied on a valuation roll in use prior to the adoption of the unimproved rating system. The council’s defence was that the rates were legally levied on the basis of the roll already in its possession and that no other roll was necessary or could be obtained. The ValuvGeneral was the authority to determine when a roll should be prepared and in this case he had announced it was not convenient to proceed with it. Mr. Stanton and Mr. Duthie appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Rogerson fop the council. A preliminary issue was raised by Mr. Rogerson, who argued that the Attorney-General should be joined as a party, otherwise if the decision went against the council, it would have to take mandamus proceedings against the Valuer-General to compel him to supply the valuation roll, thus involving rearguing of the case. The Valuer-General declared that a new roll was unnecessary and that he would not supply It. Counsel proceeded to comment upon the difficult situation that would confront the council if the injunction were granted. It would be unable to levy rates and would thus be deprived of its revenue. BIG RATING INCREASE Supporting the motion, Mr. Stanton said that the question was whether the Valuer-General had autocratic power to determine if a roll should be supplied. He proceeded to cite authorities to support his argument that a fresh roll had to be supplied by the Valuer-General within a year after the adoption of rating on unimproved values. The council had not applied for the roll until after the issue of proceedings, two and a-half years after the change in the rating system. Counsel claimed that until the council applied for mandamus to compel the Valuer-General to supply the roll, it could not contend the roll was not obtainable. The Valuer-Gen-eral’s suggestion that it was inconvenient to prepare the roll he submitted was not treating the court with respect. The change In rating system created a serious position for his client, Mr. Stanton said. The property was now valued, at £21,G00, on which the rates were £775, compared with £230 under the previous rating system. She could only obtain £2OO a year for grazing off the land, which she was prepared to sell for £12,500. VALUER-GENERAL’S RIGHTS For the defence, Mr. Rogerson said that under the Rating Act the ValuerGeneral was the sole authority to determine whether a roll was necessary and when it should be supplied, the council having no say at all. The Valuer-General had the right to prepare the new roll at his convenience, and was not bound to any date to supply the roll to the local body. Questioned by his Honour, Mr. Rogerson said that once rating on unimproved values was adopted the old roll went on until it suited the Gov-ernor-General to make a new valuation. Decision was reserved.