POWERS OF RATING ACT

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 994, 10 June 1930, Page 8

POWERS OF RATING ACT

CROWN’S LIABILITY AS MORTGAGEE IMPORTANT CASE IN COURT Press Association. NEW PLYMOUTH, Today. Questions involving consequences for the Government and for rating authorities throughout New Zealand were raised on an originating summons, the hearing of which was begun before Mr. Justice Blair jesterday. In brief, he was asked to decide whether the Crown as mortgagee « hound by the Rating Act and whether the local body concerned may sell lani after obtaining judgment against the owner. The property involved in the case is a farm of 57 acres in the Borough o f Inglewood. It was owned by \v. g Marshall, the Crown being the mortgagee. The rates were allowed to acl cumulate and the question of the payment of arrears of rates arose later The land was sold by the Crown to \V. J. Lile, who, as purchaser, is concerned as to his liability, if any, fr> r rate arrears. Judgment for the rates was obtained by the council against Marshall and the council proposed to proceed to sell the property under th* provisions of the Rating Act in order to reimburse it for the arrears. The present proceedings are to determine whether the council is entitled to go on with the sale. Counsel for the Crown, Mr. C. H. Weston, said he was concerned with the defence of three of the ancient prerogatives of the Crown: its immunity from rates; its right of priority of payment as between subject and the Crown, the freedom of Crown property from forfeiture. The main question appeared to be whether the Rating Act of 1925 bound the Crown. Counsel for the Inglewood Borough, Mr. L. M. Moss, placed the following facts before the Court. Marshall had been on the rate roll since 1920. He had paid rates up to March 31. 1925. He left the property in December, 1927, and on March 27, 1925, the local body had obtained judgment for three years* rates, 1925-28. The mortgagee’s attempts to sell began in 1928, and th 6 mortgagee first granted grazing rights in the same month. There were now due rates for two additional years. In June, 1929, the local body took action under section 79 of the Rating Act and the registrar served notice dealing with the general rates. He submitted they were payable and could be recovered by the borough council under the machinery clauses of 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 Croyvn in accordance with section 381 of the Municipal Corporations Act; (3) that the council was barred by section 5k of the Acts Interpretation Act; or (4) that over and above any statutory provisions he had referred to and apart from special rates the Crown’s prerogative prevented recovery. The hearing was adjourned. i