NO PREFERENCE GIVEN

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24741, 5 December 1945, Page 9

NO PREFERENCE GIVEN

... . SERVICEMEN PURCHASING URBAN PROPERTIES

Holding that the preference given servicemen settling in rural areas by the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act, 1943, was not given to servicemen purchasing urban properties, Mr Justice Finlay disallowed an objection made to an appeal against a decision of the Canterbury Urban Land Sales Committee at a sitting of the Land Sales Court yesterday. The appeal was made by the Tai Tapu Dairy Company, Ltd. (Mr C. S. Thomas), against the, committee’s withholding of permission for the triMees of the estate of E. G. Bennett to sell the dairy company a house at 203 King street, Rangiora. Mr F. W. Johnston appeared for the vendors.

The objection to , the appeal was made by Mr W. R. Lascelles, representing Mrs A. M, Newton and Mr J. R- Hutchison. Mr Lascelles stated that Mr„ Newton was an airman’s widow, and Mr Hutchison a returned disabled soldier. _ They had been bidders at an auction sale of the house, and their bids of £IOOO had been rejected by the vendors in favour of a bid of £I3OO by the dairy company. Mr Lascelles submitted that the title of the act described it as an act to ’provide for the control of sales and leases of land in order to facilitate the settling of discharged servicemen. There was nothing to limit this control only to rural lands. That it applied also to urban lands was to be gathered from section 50, which provided that in considering any application for consent, the committee should have regard to the desirability of facilitating the settlement of disabled servicemen. Again there was no limitation of this factor only to rural lands. Remedial acts, by the Acts Interpretation Act, were to be given a broad and liberal interpretation. It was submitted that servicemen were entitled to specific consideration in urban as well as rural Sales. . '

In allowing the company’s appeal, Mf Justice Finlay said the Court had already held that a committee could not dictate to the vendor as to whom he must sell. In another judgment, as yet unpublished, the Court had also held that the urban sections of the act did not lay down the land settlement policy. If the legislation was meant to give the serviceman preference it would plainly have said so. The matter was now one for Parliament if it felt that those wide powers should be given.' Allowing the appeal, his Honour said that the committee had reported some concern at the excessive price paid at the auction; that aspect seemed to have been exhausted when the committee rejected the first application. It seemed that the only thing to do was to allow the appeal and refer the application bach to the committee for a settlement of the price.