AGGREGATION OF A LAND

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24959, 21 August 1946, Page 5

AGGREGATION OF A LAND

COURT’S JURISDICTION QUESTIONED

APPLICATION TO SUPREME

NEW PLYMOUTH, Aug. 20. “cwking t° show that the Land Sales exceeded its jurisdiction L't;, the Sen-icemen’s Settlement and Snd Sales Act when it upheld a deof the Taranaki Land Sales Snmttee. proceedings taken in the KS Court at New Plymouth toraised the Question of land aggreSSnn in general. Mr Justice Cornish, •reserving his decision, admitted that 2. eoints raised were neat and imSrtMit and suggested that no matter S»t his finding was. one party or the Sher might care to take the matter to 2? Court of Appeal. “the circumstances from which the .breedings arose were a decision of £2 Land Sales Court to uphold the Sales Committee in its refusal ir ■ -onsent to a sale on a farm of 220 £res at Kaponga to Doreen Mary EnLihereer. The grounds of the refusal Erethat the purchase would mean aggregation because the mother, Sse Engelberger. already had suffl: Sit land. The effect of this decision, ibmitted Mr R. J. O’Dea, on behalf Jf Miss Engelberger, was that she emild not purchase land anywhere in Kew Zealand so long as land was held hr her mother. Further, if the Snreme Court declined the writs of cprtiorari and prohibition applied for, arrl thus upheld the decision of the ather Court, it would mean that any Srson might be prevented from buy5 land if any member of his family was held to have sufficient. Before the Servicemen’s Settlement »nd Land Sales Act was passed, counsaid, there was no restriction on the purchase of freehold land by any of His Majesty’s subjects in New Zea-1-nd, The act. therefore, was a serious infringement on the rights and Vberties of the subject, and besides this it created new jurisdiction—the Land Sales Court. It was thus essential that the act should be strictly interpreted, and that the national and common law rights of the subject should be preserved as far as possible. His Honour: I agree. It must be strictly interpreted. In effect the Land Sales Court says you cannot buy because you would be acting as “dummy” for the mother. Mr O’Dea said there was no question of the daughter’s acting as “dummy.” The mother had guaranteed finance for the daughter in the purchase of the land with the idea that it should be developed, and handed to her son when he reached the age of 21. The Land Sales Court had considered, however, that the mother had sufficient land for her own use and the use of the family.

“Curious Aspect” Counsel maintained that in acting thus the Court had read something into the act that was not there. His Honour: In this case the Land Sales Court held that if it permitted the purchase there would be aggregation in the family group. Mr O’Dea: I say the act does not allow that to be taken into account. A curious legal aspect of the proceedings is that the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act provides that there shall be no appeal from the decision of the Land Sales Court, yet the Supreme Court is now being asked to review such a decision. The means adopted to achieve that purpose is the application for a writ of certiorari. This matter was dealt with by Mr H. M. Vautier, of Auckland, who appeared in the proceedings “in the public interest.” He admitted that a writ of certiorari would be against the land Sales Court and the Land Sales Committee, and that if the judge refused to issue a writ the applicant could have recourse to further appeal against his decision in the Court of Appeal. Answering Mr O’Dea’s arguments, Mr Vautier said land sales committees had discretion enabling them to take into account ’.he circumstances of particular cases, and to treat a pro-

posed purchase as undue aggregation, notwithstanding that the land was to be put into the name of another member of the family. Before the Supreme Court could override the decision of the Land Sales Court, it must be shown that the Land Sales Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. It was urged by Mr Vautier that if one family got an undue share of land in a district the price of the remaining land was forced up, and it acquired an increased scarcity value. Three sets of defendants were named in the papers, Mr Justice Ongley and the other members of the Land Sales Court, Francis Stanley Grayling and other members of the Taranaki Land Sales Committee, and Harold Percy Dale, vendor of the property desired by Miss Engelberger.