WATER KATES CASE

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 103, 28 October 1932, Page 3

WATER KATES CASE

♦— / • APPEAL COURT JUDGMENT

Judgment was given by the Court of Appeal to-day on three questions raised in an originating summons in regard to the payment of water rates. The plaintiff was the Superintendent of the state Advances Department, and the defendants were the Auckland City Council and the One Tree Hill Borough Council. . . & The first- question the Court was asked to decide was whether the defendants are entitled to refuse to supply water to properties of which the plaintiff is mortgagee and which he has now taken over until arrears of rates due in respect of the supply of water to the mortgagors are first paid, in addition to ordinary water rates and the cost of re-connection. Question two was as follows:— Whether, when the plaintiff has "let a mortgaged property already connected with the. water supply, but in respect of which there are arrears of water I rates or charges for water supplied to the previous occupier or mortgagor prior to the date of tho plaintiff's letting, 'the defendants are entitled to disconnect the water supply from .the property- during the plaintiff's 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. The third question asked if the plaintiff was liable to pay a fair and reasonable charge for the supply of water, and, if so, upon what principles the charge should be fixed. In his judgment, his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said he. thought that questions 1 and 2 should be answered in the negative, and that question 3 should be answered by saying that a fair and reasonable charge must be paid for the supply of water under the circumstances set out in the statement of facts, and that (without saying necessarily that it is the sole test) the charge made to other persons is at least a test, and probably the best test, of what is fair and reasonable. Any difficulty that .arose in the present case, said his Honour, Mr. Justice Herdman, existed only because of deciding whether the Crown was in possession of the premises. If it be entitled to insist upon a supply of water to premises which it used he failed to see why it could not insist on water being supplied to other properties to the possession of which it had an indefeasible title. As to what was a reasonable sum to pay, the question was a little difficult to decide. There seemed to be no reason why the Crown should pay more than the ordinary payer of iates was required to pay, plus the cost of connecting up with the system.. . - - | Their . ' Honours, Mr. - Justice MacGregor and Mr. Justice Kennedy, concurred with the answers to the questions given by the Chief Justice. Judgment was given for plaintiff, and an order was made directing the defendants to pay the sum of £30 and disbursements. '