“DUE” DATE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20484, 10 December 1934, Page 7

“DUE” DATE.

Question of Rate Payments Decided. APPEAL COURT’S FINDING. WELLINGTON, This Day. Judgment was given in the Appeal Court to-day in the case of Oborn v. the Auckland City Council. The question involved was that of the interpretation of section 77 of the Rating Act and the ascertainment of the date on which rates become due and payable, the Judge in the lower Court having held that the date to be the date of the individual notice given to the ratepayer as opposed to the date stated in the public notice of the striking of the rates. The Court of Appeal to-day, by a majority' of thr?e Judges to two, allowed the appeal, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr Justice Blair and Mr Justice Kennedy* holding the latter date to be the one contemplated by the section, and Mr Justice Ilerdinan and Mr Justice Fair deciding in favour of the former date. A writ of prohibition accordingly' was issued against the council to prevent the enforcement by it of a judgment obtained against the appellants insofar as that judgment contravened section 77 as construed. Costs were allowed the appellant. Robert N. Oborn, of Milford, labourer, was the owner, and Basil Edgar Clark, of Kohimarama, retired, was the mortgagee of land in Auckland. Rates on the land fell into arrear and the Auckland City Council issued a summons against them and obtained judgment by default on July 7, 1930, in the Magistrate’s Court at Auckland for £136 2s 8d and costs. This sum included arrears of rates for the year 1 927-28, and Oborn and Clark moved in the .Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment on the ground that it was given without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 77 of the Rating Act, 3 925. Under that section no judgment for rates can be given after three years from the time when such rates first become due. The valid-

ity of the judgment depended on the meaning of the term “ due,” since the public notice given by the Auckland C ity Council of the striking of the rates for 1 927-28 stated that the rates were payable on July 3, 1927. whereas the demand was not sent to Oborn until

Mr Justice Ostler held on June 6 that due ” meant “ recoverable by judgment.” since the demand for rates was a condition precedent to judgment for them and the demand in the present had not b een made until July 14, 1927. His Honor ruled that judgment was obtained within three years of the time when the rates first became due and was therefore valid. Oborn and Clark appealed from this judgment.