A RATING PROBLEM

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LIV, Issue 9028, 6 November 1925, Page 5

A RATING PROBLEM

SUPREME COURT DECISIU.N In tin* Supremo Court at Wellington recently judgmeut was delivered by Mr .Justice Ostler in the case "1 an application by die Mayor, councillors and citizens ol Christchurch lor determination as to whether they were compelled to collect Kites lor the. Christchurch Drain age Board on the capital or unimprov’d ed value. The Drainage Board had a jl fecent loan raised of £700,000 for tho Lr purpose of extending its sewerage systern, setting forth, in u s ]X)JI proposals that the security therefor should be on the capital value, determination of tho system of rating being compulsory by statute. The Drainage Board has no power t ( > collect rates, but can merely levy them, leaving the collection to the C'hy Council. In this case the City Council, which, rates on the unimproved value, objected to collection • n the system of capital value. Delimitation of Powers' e His Honour, in his judgment says; a ’‘There can' ho no doubt that under L- the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1907, the plaintiffs had tho power if i- they wished, to levy rates on behalf of e the board on the unimproved value.. Section 45, sub-section 10, expressly .gave them an option in (he matter. But tho question is whether section 3 of tire- Rating Amendment Act, 1913, has impliedly repealed section 15 (10) of the Act of 1907. “That section provides that where a district, such as the district of the defendant board, includes more than one or part of more than one district such as a borough, then (a), if the system of rating is the same in all the districts so included, the rates levied by the beard shall be levied in accordance with' that system; hut (b) if the system of £ rating is not the same in all the districts so included in the board’s distinct. the hoard shall, before making and levying any rate decide by resolu- £ tion which of the systems so in force shall 'bo adopted, and the rate shall lie made and levied accordingly.” t Clear Statutory Duty, f “This case falls under (b) for, as has 1 been stated, the system of rating is not } the same in the parts of the counties ' and in the boroughs and city included in the board’s district. That Ixn’ng the case, a mandatory statutory duty is imposed on the defendant board, of deciding by resolution before making and levying its rate which of the Systems in force in various parts of its district shall he adopted. If if resolves to adopt rating on the capital value, then the section provides that the rate shall be made and levied accordingly. As in this case, the Christchurch City I Council is the only body empowered to J collect the board’s rate on the property in its area, then it follows that as the rate shall bo levied in accordance with I tho board’s resolution. ; f the board resolves on rating on enp-'tai v'llin +, »e I riitr foan f ’il is '■ompdb'l lr laiv + a j the veto ■ n fb-t trrfnp Tn oar onin- | ion. that i r-W'r]y fli-» -rnn-.i'-n r -V’ | o-.'-tinn “T - r -ff tho ■ t- ■’ - r f T r »'J j r.’-’cni''!' 1 ''i- ’i f}' '■ ' ' % .... ' "• ■ 1. v ... > r- .1’ ' ■ ; 7 -v, loh ah' “ ’"bl" 1 -' ’ ’ 1 "'h" •f.O - 7 7V. .-1 - g T, -.,.,-.7. r-t- 1 ! en d’ /v ~C! »v,nr.i V ''! i-l"~ >7