BIRKENHEAD VALUATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 143, 19 June 1922, Page 7

BIRKENHEAD VALUATION.

VALUER-GENERAL'S ACTIONS. JUDGE STRINGER* DECISION. Decision was delivered at the Supremo Court this morning by Mr. Justice Stringer with reference to an originating summons brought'for the purpose of determining the construct ion of certain sections of the Valuation of Land Act 190S, dealing with objections to the valuation roll prepared in that connection. In March of this year the ValuerGeneral revised the valuation roll of the borough of Birkenhead. Tn April, the borough lodged a number of objections against, certain valuations contained in the roll, including one against the as.sci-smeiit of the property of the defendant company, the Colonial Sugar ! Refining Company.

These objections were included by the Valuer-General in the list of objections for the determination of the court, but the company and other ratepayers contended ilint the objection ' had been lodged ton late, and that the court had no jurisdiction*to deal with them. This was the reason that the proceedings were instigated.

At the original hearing the plaintiffs, the Mayor and burgesses of Birkenhead, were represented by Mr. A. M. Gould, while Mr. 11. P. Richmond appeared for the Colonial Sugar Betiniug Company. ln the course of his judgment his Honor said that it. was piain that the purpose of the Act whs to give each ratepayer, and the local authority concerned, the right to take objection to any valuation appearing on the roll. This was necessary in order to secure that the burden of rates should- be equitahly distributed. It was obvious that if some properties were valued below their prorer value the remaining properties would bear more than their fair proportion of the. rates, while if some properties were valued above their proper values the remaining properties would bear less than their ■ proper proportion. It was. therefore, reasonable that no ratepayer or local authority should be deprived of the right of objection on a mere technicality. Although the objection may be lodged after the time fixed for that, purpose, he saw nothing in the 'Act to prevent the Valuer-General from waiving tbe noncompliance with the time limit, and, considering the objection no good reason for imputing to the Legislature, tbe intention of making it a condition precedent to the consideration of tbe objection, that it should lie lodged within such time limit-. Having regard to the scope and object of the provisions of both sections the .judge thought they were directory and not mandatory. This was also the view taken by the Crown Law Officers.

''I think, moreover, that the ValuerGeneral has full discretionary authority to determine whether or not to receive an objection which was lodged after the appointed time, and that bis determination ou that point is final and conclusive, and cannot be questioned by tho Assessment Court," concluded bis Honor. "The list which is prepared ami laid before the Assessment Court by the Valuer-General, in terms of section 14, is the basis of the jurisdiction of tho Court which, in my opinion, cannot inquire into tho procedure antecedent to tbe preparation of the list, and can neithor hear an objoction which is not. nor refuse, to hoar one which, is., on such list."

With reference to the questions submitted to the Mr. Justice Stringer! answered them as follows: — (1) In the! circumstances stated tbe Assessment Court has no jurisdiction to reject and disallow the objection of the local authority upon tbe sole ground that the objection was lodged.. after the expiry of the time limited and publicly notified by tbe Valuer-General by advertisement for the lodging of objections. t_) In the circumstances stated the ValuerGeneral is lawfully empowered to include in tho list of objections for bearing by the Assessment Court the said objection of tho local authoritj - . (3) In ' the circumstances stated the objection of tbe Birkenhead Borough Council was | duly authenticated, and was valid and

effectual as an objection by the local

authority. (4) The Assessment Court ought to proceed to hear and determine on tho merits tbe objection of the local authority, lodged at the time and manner mentioned, in relation to the property of the defendant company.

As the plaintiffs succeeded on the summons, the Court decided that they were entitled to £10 10/ costs against the company and disbursements.