Misinterpretation claim over Rolleston letter

Press, 14 April 1984, Page 5

Misinterpretation claim over Rolleston letter

A Lands and Survey Department officer who was instrumental in having a letter sent to Rolleston land tenants to encourage eradiction of noxious weeds said in evidence in the High Court yesterday that it was not the intention in the letter to offer preferential allotment to tenants upon the sale of the land. The evidence was given on the third day of a civil hearing in which 18 tenants of Crown land at Rolleston are suing the Attorney-Gen-eral for breach of contract and negligence in relation to the proposed sale of the blocks by public action. They contend that the Government had gone back on its word in doing this, as they had been led to believe by the letter that they would receive preference in the purchase of their properties. The case relates to land amongst that acquired for the 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. Mr Justice Cook adjourned the hearing to Tuesday, for legal submissions to be made. The defence case opened yesterday, the third day. 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. Mr Panckhurst, opening the case for the defence, said that the plaintiffs’ case had been conducted on a wide-ranging basis as if the Court had to consider the general merits of the matter, as might the Land Settlement Board in making its decision. However, the action was a claim in contract and in negligence, not a further rehearing. Mr Panckhurst said that the defence was that the claim failed in both fact and law. In many cases the

evidence, even if accepted in its entirety, would not support the causes of action and as a matter of law both causes of action were not sustainable. William lan Chalmers, a senior field officer of the Lands and Survey Department, said that since 1980 he had been responsible for administering an area which included Rolleston. His duties included arranging licensees or tenants, rent collection, and dealing with problems relating to maintenance and repairs to houses. When he took over the area in November, 1980, there was variation in the standard of properties. In one or two isolated cases the properties seemed to be well maintained. Others needed work done on them, and one or two were quite shocking in regard to infestation of noxious weeds and their general need for maintenance. Generally, the Crown properties stood out as being most neglected, in comparison with privately owned land in the area. After taking over the area he had discussions with another officer in relation to the weed problem. The department was to carry put noxious weed control on several properties at Crown expense. This was done by a contractor and, following on this lead by the department, it seemed logical to carry on and see if they could implement a bit more control on the other properties. That was the lead-up to the letter of August 13,1981. He looked at the draft of the letter when it was completed and agreed it conveyed the feelings that he wished it to convey with regard to noxious weeds. It was his idea to send a copy of the letter to all licence holders. The main thrust of what he wanted to achieve by the letter was that there was a considerable noxious weeds problem and it needed to be tidied up. Mr Chalmers said the letter went further than just asking the tenants if they would tidy their weeds. It stated that, in view of weed control being a condition of the licences, that cancellation of the licences would be considered if adequate control was not carried out. The defendant went further to suggest that licence holders’ compliance or otherwise in doing the work requested would be taken into consideration when the area was offered for sale publicly. The land was handed to the department for disposal. He did not know what method of disposal under the Land Act would be used, and had no authority to bind the Land Settlement Board as to the form of disposal. Mr Chalmers said he did not recall that in mid-1981 the question of preferential allotment of the blocks to existing tenants was an issue, or a theme that the residents were pursuing. There had teen no approach from any of the plaintiffs, following the sending of the letter, to seek preferential allotment. If there had been he would have told them they had misinterpreted the letter and that was not the intention. In the months after the

letter was sent he saw no noticeable change to properties, apart from one on which weed spraying had been done. He had made only “pretty cursory” roadside inspections. The conditions of properties held by each plaintiff were then dealt with individually by Mr Chalmers. He said in reference to one plaintiff that he had been asked to clean a water race and remove tall gorse along it. The tenant refused to do so because of the short-term nature of the tenancy. He did not see it as his obligation. Mr Chalmers said he recommended that this man’s licence be terminated because he had not done what was required in the conditions of his licence. The matter had been left in abeyance because of the legal proceedings. Cross-examined, Mr Chalmers said the condition of the land varied between quite well maintained, and poorly maintained. Mr Chalmers said it was standard practice for the department to enter into tenancies on a month to month basis with no compensation for improvements. Mr Chalmers was questioned about whether it was reasonable for the department to issue monthly tenancies for land that needed development. He disagreed that the Crown would necessarily get the whole benefit of the tenants’ efforts. He said that tenants had taken up properties to develop in expectation of getting some income off the land, not knowing how long the leases would be. Asked if it would be difficult to persuade people with no security of tenure, and no priority to purchase their properties, to spend the time and effort required to develop and improve the properties, Mr Chalmers said he realised there would be some difficult cases. He agreed he had not approached the tenants and asked them if they wished to purchase their properties. Mr Chalmers denied that, since he had taken over the administration of the properties, he had done everything in his power to prevent them from buying their properties. Mr Chalmers said he had made no secret of the fact that one or two tenants had looked after their properties very well. Asked if he could show evidence of having brought this to the attention of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, or the Land Settlement Board, he said he could not think of an example where it was written down.