APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 April 1933, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

WOOLWORTH’S CASE?.

RENT REDUCTION EXEMPTION

(Per Press Association**- Copyright J

WELLINGTON, March 31

The Appeal Court to-day considered an appeal by 1 Woolworths (New Zealand) Ltd., from a decision by Mr Justice Smith, exempting Charlton Greemvay. Dawson and Bertram* Kendal Green way Dawson (Auckland) from a 20 per cent reduction in the appellants’ rent, as required by the National Expenditure Adjustment Act. Evidence was brought-before the Mortgagors Liabilities Adjustment Commission t 0 show that after a substantial sum had been transferred to reserves, a dividend of 20 per cent was paid by the appellants in 1930, and' a, dividend of 15 per cent, in 1931. The Commission in refusing an application by the respondents for relief from the stautory reduction, .expressed the view that it was-not the policy of the legislature t© deny a tenant, the benefit of , the statutory, reduction merely on the ground that he had run his business well, and could, without hardship afford to pay his rent without a reduction. .K' l ' v -

Mr Justice Smith,' iii reserving this decision, held that the rent was fair as between the parties. The ’ of the Statute, he said, was to •redflMKk costs in order to assist lessees to meet their liabilities. When they meet their liabilit'es without difficulty ' there was no ground for a reduction. The appeal is brought from this, deision. Opening th.e case for ' the ' appellant, Mr Cornish said that the appellants had incurred a liability of £11,350 in purchasing the interests of sub-lessees before they had entered into possession of the respondents’ property. The respondents knew when the contract with the company was made that the company contemplated spending a large sum .on • improvements and that in 1935 the benefit of those improvements would pass ;to them. The fair rental Value of. the premises at the present time , should not be allowed to govern, the application for relief. The condition of the premises when the parties made the contract in 1929 was not only relevant, but was im r portant, in arriving at a conclusion as to the fairness op -' otherwise >of '! the present annual rental. The Court adjourned.