SUPREME COURT Motor-inn objection not ready for trial

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32789, 14 December 1971, Page 12

SUPREME COURT Motor-inn objection not ready for trial

The hearing of an application for an injunction to stop the building of the Arlington Motor Inn, in Park Terrace and Peterborough Street, was ruled not ready for trial by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday and was adjourned to February 7. The plaintiffs, John Neil Hamilton, a retired builder, Dulcie May Harris, a eytologist, Dorothy Anstruther Hennessy, a widow, Bernard Kingston Tosswill, a retired farmer, and Maude Brent Weston, a widow, were represented by Messrs A. Hearn and I. J. D. Hall. The plaintiffs own and occupy residential properties in Park Terrace and Peterborough Street. The first defendant, the Christchurch City Council, was represented by Messrs J. G. Leggat and D. M. Palmer, and the second defendant, Arlington Motor Inn, Ltd, by Messrs K. A. Gough and D. J. Clark.

The plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus against the first defendant requiring it to hear an application by the second defendant for a permit for the erection of a private hotel under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953, and the Christchurch City Council by-laws, and an injunction to restrain the second defendant, its servants, or agents from using the land in any manner contrary to the provisions of the Christchurch district townplanning scheme. The Christchurch City Council issued a building permit for a private hotel on property at 50 Park Terrace and 10 Peterborough Street on August 5, 1970. The construction of the five-storey Arlington Motor Inn began in September, and completion at the end of June is called for. Work has now reached the first-floor level. Judge’s comment

“My impression is that this case is not ready for trial, and this is just not good enough,” said his Honour. “There has been considerable inconvenience to the Court to enable this fixture to proceed today. After the matter was set down for hearing affadavits have been filed. It is obvious to me that the case should not have been set down for when it was. Affadavits have continued to dribble in, and the last was filed this morning.” The erection of the building was continuing and the plaintiffs claimed that con-

[struction should stop, Mr Hearn said. It was a matter of urgency that the hearing proceed. If the second defendant continued with a building which the Court might order to be tom down, then that was their risk, said his Honour. "Mr Hearn, what would you achieve if you were successful today that you would not achieve under a hearing under th e Town and Country Planning Act?” asked his 1 Honour. The Town and Country Planning Appeal Board would probably not be in a position to reconsider the building permit for the hotel until well into next year, and by that time the building would be substantially erected, Mr Hearn said. That, plus the fact that a, considerable sum of money had been spent, would influence public interest in the hearings.

“In private interest” “I always understood that if a building was put up which was unlawful, then the fact that it has been completed aggravates the offence,” said his Honour. “If 1 thought I was justified in making the orders you seek I would make them regardless of whether the building is completed and occupied. The fact that money has been spent in this case is in rhe private interest and not the public interest.” “The question is whether the commencement of the building was unlawful or not.” Mr Hearn said. The second defendant had done everything possible to see that th e trial proceeded as soon as possible, Mr Gough said. “I am now in a position to inform your Honour that the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board could hear the application on January 24 next,” Mr Leggat said. Mr Gough, after a short adjournment to enable him to consult his client, agreed that the matter was not ready for trial, and his Honour adjourned the hearing to February 7.

Notifiable diseases.—Three cases of infective hepatitis were reported in the Christchurch health district in the week ended December 11. There were also four cases of bacillary dysentery.