AGGREGATION OF LAND

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 265, 9 November 1945, Page 3

AGGREGATION OF LAND

CLAUSE IN SERVICEMEN’S SETTLEMENT ACT'

IMPORTANT INTERPRETATION. (P.A.) New Plymouth, Nov. 7. An important interpretation of the clause of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act dealing with undue aggregation is given by the Land Sales Court in a reserved judgment in the appeal of the Crown against the decis.on of the Taranaki Land Sales Committee granting C. E. Roebuck, contractor, permission to purchase three dwellings at Fitzroy, New Plymouth, from F. B. Lovegrove. Roebuck desired the houses for the use of his staff. The appeal was dismissed. "The general view of the Court is that the Act does not purport to impose any restraint upon the successful administration or bona fide expansion of manufacturing or commercial enterprises," states the judgment. “This view gains added weight If such enterprises are directly serving a useful public purpose. The test is—and must be—what are the reasonable requirements of the applicant for consent to purchase in respect of either his personal or his occupational needs? If the requirements are reasonable then the idea of undue aggregation is negatived, and the proposed acquisition, while it may, in fact, amount to aggregation, nevertheless amounts to proper and justifiable aggregation."

The judgment said the Crown admitted that Roebuck had in the past housed certain members of his staff, but it challenged the present transaction on the ground that, as at the date of purchase, the three houses sought to be acquTed were tenanted and so not available foi- occupation by Roebuck o> any of his nominees It also contended that it was contrary to the public policy for the employer to acquire houses already erected for the accommodation of staff members and suggested that a man in the posi tion of Roebuck should build houses, thus increasing the number of houses available for tenant occupation. "Having regard to the character and magnitude of Roebuck's undertaking; and the difficulty which members of his staff have encountered in securing accommodation, it is impossible to say,” added the judgment, “that Roebuck is not reasonably justified in providing accommodation at suitable points for such of his employees as are essential to the maintenance of his operations at the proper level of efficiency. Viewed generally, therefore, the Court does not regard this case as, on principle, one of undue aggregation. The only effect of his purchase will be to produce the substitution of tenants in a way that will secure additional benefits to at least one of the tenants as well as to Roebuck. Such substitution is not contrary to the public policy. It would, in any event, be wrong to construe the Act in a way which would constitute it an instrument of rigorous compulsion upon employers to build in order to provide accommodation for their employees."