“ACTIVE HOSTILITIES”

Evening Star, Issue 25893, 10 September 1946, Page 8

“ACTIVE HOSTILITIES”

SUPREME COURT DEFINITION BEARING OH TENANCY CASE (E.A.V WELLINGTON, Sept. 10. A definition of the meaning of “ active hostilities ” was given by Mr Justice Fair in a reserved judgment in. the Supreme Court in holding that Levin Limited was entitled to an order that the Wellington Co-operative Book Society Limited should forthwith deliver iip possession of premises owned bv- the plaintiff. “There is no doubt that active hostilities against the Governments of all countries with whom we were at war had ceased some considerable time before February 21, 1946, that is, more than three months before notice relied on as terminating the tenancy was given.” the judgment stated.' That was, and is. a matter of common knowledge. A certificate of the Vfinister of External Affairs that ‘ active hostilities ’ ceased on September 2, 1945, may be—l say no more —evidence that ‘ active hostilities,’ in the sense in which those words are used in the agreement, ceased on that date. But. before it could be regarded as conclusive the court would require to be ■ satisfied as to the meaning of ‘ active hostilities,’ as used in the agreement, and that the words were used with the same. meaning in the certificate. I am satisfied in this case that this is so. “ ‘ Active hostilities ’ means in this context ‘ actual belligerent operations by force of arms against an organised Government representing at least a considerable section of the people of an enemy country.’ It does not extend to operations against relatively small bodies of armed forces of that country that continue to resist without having any form of civil Government and contrary to the wishes and orders of their own civil Government. The nature of the operations has in such circumstances changed from hostilities against the enemy country to hostilities against rebels defying their Government’s authority. “The notice terminating tenancy was, therefore, I think, lawfully given, and the plaintiff is entitled to an order that thi defendant forthwith deliver up possession of the premises.”