TAKING LAND

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 38, 13 August 1920, Page 8

TAKING LAND

UNDER PUBLIC WORKS ACT

QUESTION OF LEGALITY.

Whether the Minister of Public Works can compulsorily take under the Public Works Act land for the construction of a Public Trust Office in the 1 City of Wellington was a question urged before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) to-day, in the case of Johnston and Co., Ltd., v. the Minister of Public Works.

Mr. ,C. P Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. A. Fair, appeared for the plaintiff, the Solicitor-General (Mr. MacGregor, K.C.), for the defendant.

|Che plaintiffs are general merchants with offices in. the City of Wellington, /and on the 4th June, 1920, a notice was gazetted announcing the intention of the Minister r,f Public Works to take under the Act the land in question, a section in Ballance-street, for the construction of a Public Trust Office. It was submitted for the plaintiffs that' the construction of a Public Trust Office was not a work constructed or intended to be constructed *by or under the control of the Government or Minister of the Crown. The plaintiffs asked for ah injunction restraining the defendants from taking the land. Mr. Skerrett contended that there was no authority to construct Public Trust Offices as a public work •with moneys appropriated by Parliament. The Public Trust Office was a. business department and really carried on a business such as had been carried on aid was carried on by insurance companies and other firms of private enterprise. The Public Trust Office was not a department of State within the meaning of the Public Works Act, and there was no authority for the Minister to take land for the erection of offices for the Public Trustee. The Public Trust was a corporation sole, and not under control of any Minister of the Crown. The defini. tion of public" works could not cover offices for the Public Trust. The scheme of the Public Trust Act was the creation of an independent corporation, of which the Minister was not in control, but only one member of the Board of Control. This, added counsel, was a mere ruse on {> the part of the Crown t& take the land for public works purposes. It was never intended tliat the 'Crown should take land for public works with the idea of vesting it in some other body. I.t was submitted that the Public Trust Office was not within the purview of .the Public Works Act, whose object was to acquire land for the erection of buildings for the . Government. The object of acquiring this land was to erect buildings and vest them and the land in the Public Trustee.

. Mr. MacGregor contended that counsel for the plaintiff had taken a narrow view of the duties and powers of the Public Trustee. He submitted that sites for Public Trust offices ought to be acquired by the Crown and held by the Crown. He urged that the Public Trust Office was a Department of the State, (md not a trading Concern. Tho Publio .Trustee was a corporation sole, and therefore capable of holding land in his own position; but that position did not give him power to' hold publjc works land. It was a Government Department, and it was the business of the Public■■ Works Department to acquire land for sites for public trust purposes. No matter how the property was acquired, it became tho property of the . Crown. The effect of Mr. Skerrett's argument would' bo that the Public Trustee had no power to acquire business premises compulsorily, but he (onmsel) contended that the land and premises came within the definition of Government. work and public, work. The- question was merely one of compensation, but on the other hand the result of.granting "the injunction would be. to seriously hinder a Government Department in the extension of its business. Judgment was reserved.