RIVER BOARD’S RATES

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 November 1923, Page 8

RIVER BOARD’S RATES

COST OF APPEALS,

(Per Press Association.) BLENHEIM, November 8. In Chambers yesterday, Mr T. E* Maunsell, S.M., delivered his considered judgment on the question or costs in connection with the recent appeals against the River Board s rating classification. In the course of his judgment, His Worship said:—“By analogy with the rule in civil cases that the successful parties should recover costs, it would seem that the appellants, who were successful, should recover costs. The position, however, is difficult and complex. In some cases the appellants were partially successful. in many cases adjustments were made during the hearing by consent of the Board, or by compromise. In these latter cases, the matter of costs was doubtless not in the mind of the Board’s counsel nor was it in mine. Some were individual hearings,, and others were heard in groups. In the latter cases, to award a lump sum as costs would be of doubtful validity. To apportion a lump sum among individuals in a group would mean allotting a trifling sum to each individual. Some of the appellants desired to be transferred from Class A. to Class C. and were transferred to Class B. Some / appellants were entirely unsuccessful. I have considered several alternative schemes, but find that they would be unequal in their operation as between the various appellants, and I have decided that it would be better to make no order as to costs than one of a nature uniustly preferring some appellants. These proceedings are probably without precedent in New Zealand, and are hardly analogous to a. civil action The Board was overwhelmed by the number of appeals.”