UNUSUAL CASE

Waikato Times, Volume 194, Issue 22246, 15 January 1944, Page 4

UNUSUAL CASE

AGGREGATION OF LAND DOUBT AS TO LEGALITY (By Telegraph.— Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, Friday * The question of what constitutes an undue aggregation of land under the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act was debated at a sitting of the Auckland Urban Land Sales Committee today when* consideration was given to the transfer of property to a purchaser holding 20 properties, comprising mostly small houses and a few shops, for investment purposes. The application was for the transfer of a shop and house property from the Public Trustee to Colin Campbell. “There is no dispute over the value of the property,” said the chairman, Mr K. G. Archer, “but there is the question whether the purchaser is aggregating too much land within the meaning of the Act.” Mr L. A. Dougail, who appeared for the purchaser, said the buying of urban properties was a method used by Campbell for investment purposes. He was retired and looked after the properties himself. The properties represented the bulk of his assets. Mr W. S. Kent, on behalf of the vendor, said that nowhere in the Act was there any definition of what constituted undue aggregation. He submitted that the words “undue aggregation” meant something against the public interest and that the aggregation of houses was not in itself against the public interest. He further submitted that the Act applied to rural land. Replying to a' question by the chairman, Mr Dougail said Campbell was not buying and selling properties as a speculator. Question of Appeal Mr T. W. West, a member of the committee, asked whether there was any chance of Campbell taking the case to the Court of Appeal if the application for a transfer were refused. Mr Dougail: No, we are prepared to stand by the committee’s decision. Mr West: We would like him to appeal. Announcing the committee’s decision to grant the application, Mr Archer said the Act gave the committee little guidance as to what circumstances the committee should refuse permission on the ground of undue aggregation. There was some doubt whether the act applied to house properties at all. Ia the present case there was no evidence before the committee that the transfer would be injuring the interests of the public. On the other hand there would no doubt be hardship on the vendor if the sale of the property to an investor were refused. Asked whether the committee would give any general ruling for such cases, Mr Archer said it was desirable for the Crown to draw the committees’ attention to cases where the buyer already held a large number of properties. He thought that course would be wise until the committee received a ruling. In the meantime he thought the committee should grant such applications unless evidence showed that the transfer was against public interest.