Supreme Court Action To Test Validity Of By-Law

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27637, 19 April 1955, Page 9

Supreme Court Action To Test Validity Of By-Law

Decision was reserved by Mr Justice McGregor in the Supreme Court yesterday on appeals by Alfred Bryan Williamson, a builder, against his convictions in the Magistrate’s Court on breaches of the Christchurch City Council building by-laws. Mr P. H. T. Alpers appeared for Williamson, and Mr W. R. Lascelles for the City Council. Mr Alpers said that, though the appeals were by way of rehearing, no facts were in dispute and he asked the Court to deal with them on a point of law.

Mr Lascelles said he agreed with that course being followed. The appeals were against convictions by a Magistrate in August, 1954, on two charges of infringing the city councl’s by-laws. Williamson was convicted on charges of erecting a building by altering premises at 22 Armagh street without obtaining a permit and of continuing the existence of a building in a state contrary to the New Zealand Standard Code building by-laws. Mr Alpers said that the charges related to alterations to an old residential building not far from the Courthouse. The by-laws were * socalled model by-laws prepared by the New Zealand Standards Institute. He submitted that the by-laws were invalidly adopted by the council; that H? ey were . vague and uncertain and therefore invalid; and that, insofar as their meaning could be obtained, there was no offence. These standard by-laws purported to be adopted by the city council on March 25, 1948. j was contended that they were adopted by citation, but power to adopt them in this fashion was not given until the passing of the Standards Amendment Act of 1950. If it was contended by the city council that the by-laws were adopted under the Municipal Corporations Act, he submitted that the by-laws should have been published by advertisement. At least the object of purport of them must be, said Mr Alpers. The ad-

vertisements by the city council were mere citations and did not meet the requirements of the Municipal Corporations Act.

Mr Lascelles submitted that there was an ord ; nary making of by-laws under the municipal Corporations Act. The question of adoption by citation was irrelevant. The council fulfilled the requirements of the Municipal Corporations Act in its advertisements of the proposal to adopt the by-laws. The council was faced with putting the public on its guard in regard to what was going through but it was not necessary to publish a by-law in full or even portions of an elaborate building code. It was sufficient to indicate what the by-law covered and that the public could go to the council office and inspect it in its detail. That was the safest way and it was the course adopted throughout the country.

The building at 22 Armagh street was an old dwelling, a shell and an attempt had been made to convert it into 10 apartments, said Mr Lascelles. The council submitted that nothing legal had been done to the building yet. Williamson admitted in the Lower .Court that he had no permit ana that he knew' he should have had one. The continuing existence of an offence was established beyond any doubt. Mr Alpers, in reply, said that the object or purport of a by-law must be stated m an advertisement. That d i d , mean that by a hint the public should be put on inquiry. A clause m the by-law said that in case of alterations or repairs to . a building erected before the introduction of the by-law it would be sufficient compliance if the work was carried out as reasonably as practicable. Williamson did enough to meet the requirements by doing what he did. The definition of “building” in the by-law left ond in doubt and if Williamson was left in a state of doubt by a reading of the by-law there was no offence.

His Honour said he would take time to consider his decision.