RESTRICTED RIGHT

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 30, 29 October 1932, Page 10

RESTRICTED RIGHT

Local Authorities and Water Rates WITHHOLDING SUPPLY Definite restrictions have been laid down by the Appeal Court as to the powers of water-supply authorities to withhold or cut off water supplies from premises on which the water-rates are In arrears. While an authority having a monopoly may stop the supply against the occupier or person in default, it cannot withhold the supply against succeeding occupiers who are not the persons in default. The plaintiff in the case was the Superintendent of the State Advances Department, and the defendants the Auckland City Council and the Borough of One Tree Hill. Mr. A. Fair, K.C., appeared for the department and Mr. J. O’Shea for the defendant authorities. The questions Submitted to the Court of Appeal were:—(l) Whether the defendant bodies are entitled to refuse a supply of water to properties of which plaintiff is mortgagee, and which he had leased, unless and until arrears of water rates in respect of the supply of water to mortgagors of the properties are previously paid, in addition to the ordinary water rates and the cost of re-connection. (2) Whether when plaintiff is letting properties on which arrears of water rates are due, defendants are entitled to disconnect the water supply during the period of lease, although he is willing to pay and duly pays the ordinary water rates or a fair and reasonable charge for water supplied during the period. (3) Is plaintiff Hable to pay a fair and reasonable charge for the supply of water in such circumstances, and, if so, upon what principle is such charge to be fixed? An Implied Obligation. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in his judgment, answered the first two questions in the negative, and the third in the affirmative. Where a watersupply authority had a monopoly there was an obligation—implied where not expressed—to supply water to all requiring it and who were prepared to pay a fair and reasonable charge. Apt, if not coercive, language was required to confer upon the authority the right to refuse water or stop the supply to any particular premises by reason of non-payment of a rate or charge in respect of water- previously supplied, except to the person primarily liable for, and actually in default in respect of, the arrears. That was generally the person to whom the water was supplied in respect of which arrears were owing. The section of the Act did not say that the authority could, without prejudice to any other remedy, stop the supply of water to such premises until the arrears were paid. In his Honour’s opinion the section referred to a personal liability. While the cost of stopping the water could be recovered from the person liable for the arrears, it could not be made a further charge against the land. Nor was the section sufficient to create a liability on the part of the mortgagee or any other person to pay the cost if the person liable made default in payment. His Honour also referred to the contention of the Solicitor-General that the section in any case could not operate against the plaintiff, as a further section of the Municipal Corporations Act said that, unless specially provided, nothing in the Act should be construed to apply to or affect the interest of his Majesty in any property belonging to or vested in his Majesty. Fair Charge Must Be Paid. In regard to the third question, the answer was that a fair and reasonable charge must be paid for the supply, based on a fair test. Sir Alexander Herdman said there seemed to be no reason why the Crown should pay more than the ordinary payer of rates was required to pay, plus the cost of connecting up the system. Mr. Justice MacGregor and Mr. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment of the Chief Justice, ajjd judgment was given accordingly, the defendant authorities to pay £3O costs and disbursements.