WATER FOR HOUSES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21326, 29 October 1932, Page 10

WATER FOR HOUSES

KATES IN ARREARS RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEE APPEAL COURT'S RULING SUPPLY ON FAIR CHARGE CbV telegraph—own correspondent] ■WELLINGTON, Friday .Definite restrictions have been laid down by tlie Appeal Court as to the powers of water supply authorities to withhold or cut off water supplies from premises on which water rates are iu arrears. While an authority having a monopoly may stop a supply against the occupier or person in default it cannot withhold supply against succeeding occupiers who aro not the persons in default. The plaintiff in the case in which judgment was given to-day was the superintendent of the State Advances Department and the defendants were the Auckland City Council and tlio One Tree Hill Borough Council. ?Tr. A. Fair, K.C., appeared for the department and Mr. J. O'Sliea for the defendant authorities. The questions submitted to the Court were: (1) Whether the defendant bodies were entitled to refuse to supply water to properties of which plaintiff was mortgagee and which he had leased, unless the arrears of rates in respect of the supply of water to mortgagors of the properties were previously paid, in addition to ordinary water rates and the cost of reconnection. Decision of Ohief Justice (2) Whether, when pla:ntiff was letting properties on which there were arrears of water rales, the defendants were entitled to disconnect tlie water supply during the period of lease although plaintiff was willing to pay ordinary water rates or a fair and reasonable charge for water supplied during the period. (3) Was plaintiff liable to pay a fair and reasonable charge for supply of water in sucth circumstances and if so, upon what principle was such charge to be fixed '! The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in his judgment answered the first two questions in the negative and the third in the affirmative, lie said that where a water supply authority had a monopoly there was an obligation, implied where not expressed, to supply water to all requiring it and who were prepared to pay a fair and reasonable charge. Apt if not coercive language was required to confer upon an authority the right to refuse water or stop supply to any particular premises by reason of nonpayment of the rate or charge in respect of water previously supplied, except to the person primarily liable for and actually in default in respect of arrears. That was generally the person to whom the water was supplied in respect of which arrears were owing. The section of the Act did not say that an authority could, without prejudice to any other remedy, stop the supply of water to such premises until arrears were paid. In His Honor's opinion the section referred to personal liability. Fair Charge Must be Paid While the cost of stopping water could he recovered from the person liable for arrears it could iv : be made a further charge against the iund. Nor was the section sufficient to create liability on the part of the mortgagee or any other person to pay the cost if the person liable made default in payment. His Honor also referred to the contention of the SolicitorGeneral that the section in any case could not operate against the plaintiff, as a further section of the Municipal Corporations Act said that unless specially provided nothing in the Act should be construed to apply to or affect the interest of His Majesty in any property belonging to or vested in His Majesty. In regard to the third question the answer was that a fair and reasonable charge must be paid for supply, based on a fair test. Mr. Justice Herdman said there seemed to be no reason why the Crown should pay more than the ordinary payer of rates was required to pay, plus the cost of connecting up with the system. Mr. Justice MacGregor and Mr. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment of the Chief Justice, and judgment was given accordingly, tfie defendant authorities to I pay £3O costs and disbursements.