TAUMARUNUI CASE.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1399, 31 May 1923, Page 5

TAUMARUNUI CASE.

BOROUGH BUILDING BY-LAW, HELD NOT TO BE UNREASONABLE. Certain questions were answered by the Chief Justice in his recent decision in a Taumarunui matter, when the plaintiff was Miriama Buildings Ltd. (who asked for a declaratory judgment) and the Taumarunui Borough Council was the defendant. The plaintiffs desired to know whether the removal of its buildings, as contemplated, were contrary to certain sections of borough by-laws. The Council had prohibited the removal of the buildings. “It appears that in case of a rein, ova’l of a ‘building entire’ there must be an application to the Council. This, counsel for the applicant, admits,” declared Sir Robert Stout. “What, then, has the application to contain? The answer is ‘plans and particulars as if the erection were a new one,' specifying in addition that so much of the old material as was sound and of good quality, and in accordance with this part of this by-law for the area would lie used in. the erection, and that in all respects the erection or re-erection could he in accordance with such requirements. “Now. first, is this removal ‘entire’ of a building or a ‘re-erection’ as these words or either of them are used in the by-law? In my opinion it is not clear that this is so. And a by-law like other law that is limiting a right must he clear and not doubtful In my opinion removing a building ‘entire’ is not ‘erecting' a building and certainly not re-erecting it. The power of the Council to refuse permission is limited as the further words say; 'Failing which’ —failing what. viz., failing the Council being satisfied that ‘the erection or re-erec-tion' would be in accordance with the requirements of a new building so far as material is concerned. These words are, in my opinion, not apt in dealing with this, a removal' of an entire building. “I am of opinion, however, that if the building is not removed ‘entire' then the by-law applies, and an erection or re-erection of a building which lias not brick external and party walls could not he removed. i may also add that, in my opinion, the by-law is not unreasonable.

“As to costs, if the building can he removed entire, that is, nothing requires to he disturbed, chimneys ir other parts, then the borough should pay £5 5s costs' to plaintiff, otherwise no costs.”