Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1915. THE CORPORATION LEASES

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 56, 8 March 1915, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1915. THE CORPORATION LEASES

It would have been far more satisfactory for all concerned in the fixing of the city's rentals if the umpire and . the one arbitrator who concurred with him in the recent decisions had stated their reasons as fully and as clearly as Mr. Morison, K.C., the other arbitrator, has stated the grounds of his dissent. It is usual for a Judge, whose concern , is with principles and precedents, to give the reasons for his decision, while a jury, which deals only with the facts of a single case, is -bound by no precedent, and creates no precedent to bind anybody else, returns a simple answer, of " Yes," " No," or how much. The reason why an arbitrator usually prefers to model his procedure upon that of the jury rather than of the Judge is that it renders his decisions 'less liable to be upset. What is an advantage from his point of view has, however, the disadvantages of imparting to these tribunals something of the irresponsibility of 4 jury and of preventing their decisions from giving to the parties before them and to future parties the guidance that they would otherwise afford. Mr. Morison's action, therefore, in elaborating his reasons, and that of the City Council in publishing them, are to be commended, and it 1 is to bo hoped that in' future arbitrations on these leases, all of which raise substantially the same questions of principle, a similar course will be followed both by the majorities and by the dissentients. In the absence of any word from those responsible for the recent awards, Mr. Skerrett, K.C., as counsel for the lessees, has taken up the cudgels against Mr. Morison. Such a frankly partisan procedure is better than nothing, though it provides but a poor substitute for a judicial pronouncement. How entirely Mr. Skerrett fails to rise above the standpoint of the advocate appears from the opening remarks, in which he censures the City Council for having published Mr. Morison's argument. "The object of its publication," I ho writes, " must have been to present an ex parte statement of tho Corporation's case and to prejudice Corporation lessees in future arbitrations held for the purpose of determining renewed rents." Such an imputation is entirely unwarranted. It is not prejudice but enlightenment that the full publication of an arbitrator's reasons for his decision I is calculated to produce, and it is not Mr. Morison's fault or the Corporation's that a similar statement was not forthcoming from the majority. The crucial point, according to Mr. Skerrett's argument, is the extremely disadvantageous character of the terms and conditions of the leases, irrespectively of the quantum of rent. There is an element of humour' in the outcry that has been raised againßt the leases on this ground, and especially in the fact that Mr. Skerrett has been its most conspicuous mouthpiece. The defects of the present form of lease are not the result of any original sin on the part of the Corporation or ite trustees and advisers. They are'the outcome of a strong agitation on the part of lessees who were dissatisfied with the long terms at a flat rent which had previously prevailed. In. that agitation some of the be3t business men in Wellington took a hand j they were glad to get the Corporation's consent to a change aJid to take up leases on the present basis; and among the) new tenants is the legal firm to which Mr. Skerrett belongs. A lawyer who advises' himself is commonly reputed not [ to Jla\e a, wist lnaa for l»i» cliwit, and j

one who has illustrated' this maxim might be expected to be a little more merciful to th© other party to the blunder. Neverthelesej we think it undeniable that a blunder has been made, which it is to the public interest to have remedied. "The lease gives no fixity of tenure," sayjs Mi. Bkerrett, " and provides no real security for payment of compensation for improvements erected upon the land by the tenant." These two objections are, we take it, really one, since apart from the insecurity in regard to compensation the fixity of tenure ie absolutely guaranteed by the perpetual right of renewal. An extension of the renewal periods from fourteen to twenty-one years might, however, be more popular with the tenants, and is unobjectionable on principle. The essential point is the compensation, for which there is at present no security in the event of the tenant regarding the revised rent as excessive and desiring to throw up his lease. There is, however, a simple and equitable remedy. If the lease of a dissatisfied leaseholder were put up to auction with the value of the improvements added, and their price had to be paid to him by the purchaser, theTe would be an automatic and equitable adjustment of the matter between the tenant and his successor, and the tenant would have no grievance and the Corporation no liability. There seems to be no reason why so just and effective a method should not be .retrospectively incorporated in existing leases.