COMPENSATION CLAIM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20922, 11 July 1931, Page 14

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

BUILDING IN NEWMARKET.

DELAY IN GRANTING PERMIT. ARGUMENT ON LEGAL POINTS. [by telegraph.—toess association.] , WELLINGTON, Friday. The Full Court, consisting of the Chiei Juslice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr. Justice MacGrcgor, Mr. Justice Smith and Mr. Justice Kennedy, heard argument to-day on a case stated under Section 78 of the Public Works Act, 1928, in the action of Thomas Umfrey Wells, of Auckland, schoolmaster, against the Borough of Newmarket. The facts as stated to tho Court are that claimant was the owner of land in Broadway, Newmarket, and in November, 1929, ho applied to tho borough council for a permit lo erect a brick and concrete building on his land. The council refused to grant the permit on the ground that tho building, if erected, would bo in contravention to the townplanning scheme adopted by it. Wells then appealed to tho Town Planning Board, but that board upheld the council's decision. In October, 1930, a poll of ratepayers was taken by tho coun- | cil in connection with its proposal to raise a loan to purchase tho land of tho claimant, but tho proposal was defeated and the council their decided to grant the claimant tho permit, which was applied for and was actually granted. On November 24, the claimant transferred the land in question to his children, and on tho following day served on the council a claim for compensation in respect of tho injury alleged to have been suffered by the council's action. On December 12 h® served an amended claim, and followed that up by issuing Court proceedings on March 2. Later, amended Court proceedings were filed by him and ho then applied to have the case heard before a Compensation Court. A Compensation Court was constituted and the case was heard on June 1. At tho close of the evidence, certain matters of law were reserved for the opinion of the Full Court and they are the points which were argued to-day. The case stated aslcs for the opinion of the Court on the following questions:— (1) Whether the claim of November 25 had been abandoned by the claimant and whether the Court in any case had jurisdiction to hear it; (2) whether the claim of December 12 had any validity in law and whether it had been filed in time; (3) whether the Compensation Court had any power to amend claims for compensation; (4) what basis should be adopted by the Court in assessing compensation; (5) what was tho effect of the transfer of the property to claimant's children. The Court reserved decision.