BETTERMENT CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 36, 12 February 1931, Page 7

BETTERMENT CLAIM.

VULCAN LANE WIDENING. 1 CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. - Reserved judgment was given by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court to-day in a dispute between the Auckland City Council and several lessees and owners of property in Vulcan Lane as the outcome of street widening operations carried out by the council. " The dispute arose in regard to the payment of claims for betterment. -The respondents, in two cases stated for the 'Court, were the Guardian Trust and Executors Co., Ltd., Mrs. Margaret S. Lynch and Mr. Oliver Nicholson, James Collins Gleeson, commission agent, Patrick Gleeson, brewer, and Hancock .and Company, A sum of £3360 was claimed by the council. ' The properties involved were in the estates of the late J. T. Boylan and Patrick Gleeson. His Honor, sitting as president of a compensation court, was asked to make' an order determining which of the' respondents were the "owners" of the lands, fixing the incidence of the betterment payable, and costs, and also apportioning the betterment. In his judgment, his Honor said it was difficult to believe that the Legislature intended to load a lessee, whose lease was/'fast reaching its termination, with the whole burden of a betterment claim. The leislation was puzzling. In his Honor's opinion section 193 of the .Municipal Corporatious Act, 1920, under which the claims were brought, was substantially a reproduction of the enactments under which the Wellington City Council and the Masterton Borough Council had recovered betterment. The intention was to impose upon certain lands an obligation to pay for the enhanced value given to them by improvements in the locality out of public money. The only matter left in darkness was who should pay. After giving section 193 careful consideration, his Honor decided, there being a definite resemblance in principle between legislation in England and part of that section, that the Compensation Court had power on the application of any party to the claim made in respect of the Boylan property to order that all the claims made against the persons interested in- that propertv should be heard together, and to appor- . tion the liability for betterment. • The claims were at present embodied in one document; but if an application by. a party for a joint hearing were necessary, it was not, he thought, too late to make the order. This applied also to the claims in - jspect of the Gleeson property. Answering the questions put to him in regard to tli Boylan .estate, his Honor said that the "owner" of- the lands meant all the respondents named; and ; the other questions could not be answered until evidence washeard. Regarding, the Gleeson property, the respondents, Hancock , and>, .Company . were liable for the payment of part < the council's claim, but the nroportio- .; could i.ut b j -determineduntil the evi-, dence was heard. Neither' could the other questions be answered until, after the hearing of evidence. ' '" - '