Supreme Court Motion By County Council Dismissed

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30312, 12 December 1963, Page 15

Supreme Court Motion By County Council Dismissed

In the Supreme Court yesterday Mr Justice Wilson dirmissed a motion by the Waimairi County Council seeking the striking out of a statement of claim and a writ of summons against the council by Joan Alexandria Britton.

In a hearing set down 'or early next year, Mrs Britton claims the cost of purchasing a section which al joins her own section in a street in the Waimairi County. In September 1961 Mrs Britton and the council contracted to exchange certain lands in the Waimairi County, with the council transferring to Mrs Britton a piece of land in a new street and Mrs Britton exchanging the property which she owned at the time, this property being sought 1 the council for reading purposes. The statement of claim alleged that the land was transferred to Mrs Britton, and she later entered into a contract with a builder for the building of a house on ♦' ■> property. The builders, in building the house, went according to boundary pegs on the property, and it is alleged that these pegs were installed by the County Council. Later, it is alleged, a Mr Parker, who is a member of the council’s staff, had verified that the boundary pegs were indeed in their correct position, and as a result of this information Mrs Britton proceeded to erect her house. Subsequently it was discovered that the house was built partly on an adjoining section of which the council is the registered proprietor. Mrs Britton has alleged that she is entitled to claim for negilgence on three grounds:— 1. The council incorrectly located the boundary pegs. 2. The council’s employee, Mr Parker, had incorrectly said that the pegs were in the correct positions. 3. The council had incorrectly granted a building permit for the house when it

ought to have known that it was being built across the boundary. For the council, Mr J, G. Hutchison asked that the statement of claim be struck out. On the first ground for complaint, Mr Hutchison submitted that there was no duty on the part of a vendor of land to correctly peg the boundaries of that land. On the other grounds, Mr Hutchison said that there was nothing to show that Parker owed any duty to Mrs Britton or that he was asked for his opinion as an expert, and that the council had no duty regarding boundaries in dealing with permits to build. For Mrs Britton, Mr C. E. Purchase submitted that the council’s motion could not be allowed unless it could satisfy the Court that there was no possibility under any circumstances of Mrs Britton’s succeeding in her claim.