AGGREGATION JUSTIFIED

Evening Star, Issue 25635, 8 November 1945, Page 3

AGGREGATION JUSTIFIED

HOUSES FOR EMPLOYEE TENANTS IMPORTANT LAND SALES DECISION (P.A.) NEW PLYMOUTH, Nov. 7. An important interpretation of the clause in the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act dealing with undue aggregation was given by the Land Sales Court in a reserved judgment in the appeal of the Crown against the decision of the Taranaki Land Sales Committee granting C. E. Roebuck, a contractor, permission to purchase three dwellings at Fitzroy, New Plymouth, from E. B. Lovegrove. Roebuck desired the houses for the Tise of his staff. The appeal was dismissed. “ The general view of the court is that the Act does not purport to impose any restraint upon the successful administration or genuine expansion of manufacturing or commercial enterprises,” states the judgment. “ This view gains added weight if such enterprises are directly serving a useful public purpose. “ The test is, and must always be, What are the reasonable requirements of the applicant for consent to purchase in respect of either his personal or his occupational needs? If his requirements are reasonable, then the idea of undue aggregation is negatived and the proposed acquisition, while it may in fact amount to aggregation, nevertheless amounts to proper and justifiable aggregation.” The judgment said the .Crown admitted that Roebuck had in the past housed certain members of his staff, but it challenged the present transaction on the ground that as at the date of the purchase the three houses sought to be acquired were tenanted and so not available for occupation by Roebuck or any of his nominees. It also contended that it was contrary to public policy for an employer to acquire houses already erected for the accommodation of staff members,. and suggested that a man in the position of Roebuck should build houses, thus increasing the number of houses available for tenant occupation. “ Having regard to the character and magnitude of Roebuck’s undertaking, and the difiiculty which members of his staff have encountered in securing accommodation, it is impossible to 6ay,” added the judgment, ” that Roebuck is not reasonably justified in providing accommodation at suitable points for such of his employees as are essential to the maintenance, of his operations at a proper level of efficiency. Viewed generally, therefore, the court does not regard this case as on principle one of undue aggregation. The only effect of his purchase will be to produce a substitution of tenants in a way that will secure. additional benefits to at least one of the tenants, as well as to Roebuck. Such substitution is not contrary to public policy. “ It would in any event be wrong,” the judgment concluded, “ to construe the Act in a way which would constitute it an instrument of rigorous compulsion upon employers to build in order to provide accommodation for their employees.”