Rolleston tenants sue Crown

Press, 12 April 1984, Page 4

Rolleston tenants sue Crown

Eighteen tenants of Crown properties in Rolleston, in a civil action which began in the High Court yesterday, are suing the At-torney-General for breach of contract and other breaches in relation to the proposed sale of the blocks of land by public auction.

They contend that the Government had gone back on its word in doing this, as they had been led to believe earlier that they would receive preference in the purchase of their properties. The case, which is being heard by Mr Justice Cook, relates to land amongst that acquired for the former Labour Government’s Rolleston New Town development between 1972 and 1975 — a scheme which was not continued with by the present Government, upon its election in 1975.

The hearing will continue today.

Mr C. B. Atkinson and Mr I. D. Scott appear for the plaintiffs, and Mr G. K. Panckhurst and Miss K. P. McDonald for the AttorneyGeneral, named as defendant, as registered proprietor of Crown Lands in New Zealand.

The plaintiffs’ statement of claim stated that from 1977 the defendant granted licences to the plaintiffs and others on short-term, onemonth terms on the basis that the properties would be available for disposal within a comparatively short time, as soon as zoning difficulties under the Town and Country Planning Act had been overcome.

In fact, such zoning difficulties were not overcome until 1982 and in some cases the plaintiffs occupied the land, pursuant to their licences, for much longer

periods than had been anticipated — in one case nearly 10 years, and an average of 3¥z years tenure. In 1982, when the zoning difficulties were overcome, the defendant determined to dispose of the land. In February, 1983, the Land Settlement Board held an inquiry under provisions of the Land Act to determine the appropriate method of disposal of the land, and in particular to consider representations made by or on behalf of the plaintiffs for preferential allotment of the land.

At the conclusion of the inquiry the board determined that the land should be sold by public auction, without giving the plaintiffs any opportunity for preferential allotment or consideration of their own special circumstances or hardship. The board purported to act in accordance with what it perceived to be the policy of the Government and the wishes of the Minister of Lands (Mr Elworthy), the statement continued.

It said that, following an appeal by the tenants’ association to the board for a rehearing, and a committee of the board holding a rehearing, the original decision was upheld. The land was to have been offered for public auction on December 8, last year, without any preferential consideration given to the plaintiffs, and without any consideration given to improvements carried out by them.

The statement of claim said that on August 13,1981, each plaintiff received a letter written by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, on behalf of the defendant, and wnieh became a term

of their licences. The letter said that money and effort expended by them in the maintenance and/or improvement of the land would either entitle them to preferential allotment when the defendant ultimately disposed of the land, or to consideration of the effort and expense incurred, in considering preferential allotment.

The plaintiffs claimed that this had been breached under various headings. They sought a declaration by the Court that the defendant should not, before the hearing of their appeal under the Land Act, or the determination by the Court of the allegations of breach of contract, sell or advertise

for sale the land and improvements held by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the defendant had committed the breaches of contract as set out in the claim, and a declaration that the defendant reconsider the plaintiffs’ application for preferential consideration when disposing of the land, having regard to the decisions made by the Court in respect of the allegations of breach of contract, breach of natural justice, and excess of jurisdiction.

A declaration requiring that a valuation of the improvements, before selling or advertising the land, be made was also sought in the

statement of claim, as were costs. Monetary damages were also claimed by each plaintiff.

Mr Atkinson said, in traversing the background to the application, that the letter from the Commissioner of Crown Lands in 1981 was a contractual term, but it had not been given effect to when the decision was made to sell the tenants’ properties by public auction.

Mr . Atkinson said evidence would be that the plantiffs were all induced by the terms of the letter to spend money and effort on improvements to the properties.

This effort and expenditure could be lost by the

carelessness of the defendant in making a representation to them that they would have preference.

Mr Atkinson said that he conceded this was not done maliciously, but it was clearly intended to induce them to spend money on their properties. Evidence of plaintiffs then began. The first, a solo mother, said she had been led to believe, upon receipt of the letter, that tenants would receive first option when the land was sold. When she had saved up sufficient money she had three rooms repainted, and purchased shrubs for the garden, and undertook fencing and other improvements.