Supreme Court Harbour Works Lead To Land Purchase Dispute

Press, Volume C, Issue 29624, 21 September 1961, Page 12

Supreme Court Harbour Works Lead To Land Purchase Dispute

Land owned by the Lyttelton Borough Council and taken by the Lyttelton Harbour Board for its £3jm. harbour development scheme was tile subject of legal argument in the Supreme Court yesterday on questions raised in a case stated by arbitrators. The arbitration itself had been adjourned until these questions had been decided by the Court for the guidance of the arbitrators.

Mr P. H. T. Alpers appeared for the arbitrators, Messrs E. C. Champion and C. S. Thomas. The Lyttelton Harbour Board was represented by Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr N. H. Buchanan, and Mr J. G. Leggat appeared for the Lyttelton Borough Council. After hearing submissions by counsel throughout the day, Mr Justice Richmond reserved his decision. He indicated that his decision would probably be confined to the question of whether the matter should be arbitrated on according to the provisions of the Public Works Act.

The parties had appointed the two arbitrators to fix the

value of the land acquired by the Harbour Board from the Borough Council. During yesterday's hearing a further question arose for the decision of the Court whether the board and the council had the power to refer their dispute to arbitration.

The questions for decision in the case stated by the were whether the price to be fixed by the arbitrators should be fixed in accordance with the Public Works Act, or under an ordinary agreement for sale and purchase as if the parties were willing vendor and willing purchaser; and further, what was the date at which the value of the land was to be fixed.

Mr Alpers said the case arose out of two submissions to the arbitrators between the board and the council concerning two pieces of land which the board wanted, and which the council was prepared to sell to the board. One area of land urns of eight acres and a half and the other 8.9 perches. Mr Alpers said that in June, 1958, a notice was gazetted that it was the board’s intention to take over the eight and a half-acre block under provisions of the Public Works Act In a letter to the board in July, 1958, the council objected to the taking of the land. The council failed to agree on the price to be paid by the board. Mr Young submitted that the mat’er should be arbitrated on under the provisions of the. Public Works Act.

Mr Leggat submitted that the matter should be arbitrated not under the provisions of the act but as between a Willing purchaser and willing vendor. Towards the end of counsel's submissions his Honour commented that, off hand, if he held the arbitration should not be under the act, it seemed a common sense view that the arbitrators, because the public welfare of the port ' and borough were interdependent, should proceed with the aim of fixing a fair price to both parties in all the circumstances.