FAIR RENT CASE

Evening Star, Issue 25523, 29 June 1945, Page 4

FAIR RENT CASE

PLAINTIFF'S ACTION SUCCESSFUL

A reserved judgment in an involved legal action dealing with' the interpretation of the Economic Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, 1942, has been delivered by Mr Justice Kennedy, The judgment was the outcome of a civil claim brought in the Supremo Court on May l l4 by Service Buildings Ltd. for £172 13s -4d from Todd Motors Ltd., tho amount representing the balance allegedly clue for rent in terms of a lease dated May 15, 1939. His Honour has given judgment for plaintiffs for tho full amount claimed, with costs according to scale, and also witnesses' expenses and disbursements, to be fixed by the registrar. ■" lif one takes the whole of the regulations together, I think a clear intention has been expressed, and that intention should not he held to be frustrated by infelicities of language which a minute analysis discloses," the judgment states. " Tho regulations apply to excess rent paid, and give a specific mode of recovery, but with a limitation. I think in the circumstances the remedies of the tenant are, limited to those given by regulation 19." Reference was made by His Honour in the course of his judgment to this regulation as follows: —"Regulation 18 provides that the excess rent covered by it is not recoverable or is irrecoverable. Regulation 19 deals with rent which, by virtue of the is irrecoverable, and that regulation shows, if the term ' irrecoverable ' sum used in regulation 19 is more than referential, that it includes not only rent payable but also rent paid; tfor it refers to the recovery of any such \sum which has at' any. time been-paid on account of the rent of any property. The words " at any time '[ in this re- : gulation cover a time which may bo anterior to the data on which the order is made. Those words correspond to the words " whether before or after the passing of this Act," used in section 5 of the English Act, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917. % Regulation 19 derives, through section 10 of the Fair Rents Act, 1936, and earlier New Zealand legislation, from section 14 of tho English Act, .tho Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restriction) Act, 1915 ..." At the hearing, Mr H. Brash represented the plaintiff company, and the defendant company was represented by Mr F. B. Adams, with him Mr "W. S. Armitage.