#6849 - Auckland Harbour Board V. King - Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL

Auckland Harbour Board v. King

Facts

The appellants, the Auckland Harbour Board, which originally came into existence at an earlier date, were to be deemed under the provisions of the Harbours Act, 1908, to have been constituted under it. But the Board as originally constituted had previously, on December 24, 1897, made a lease to John Burns & Co., Ld., for a term of fifty years, at a rent of 200l. per annum, of a piece of land, forming part of the Board's endowment, marked "V" on a plan produced at the hearing. This land was close to Auckland Harbour. The Government took it on December 13, 1909, for railway purposes, and John Burns & Co. thereupon became entitled by statute to compensation. They claimed 21,894l. 10s. This claim was, however, agreed to be settled under the following circumstances. The Auckland Harbour Empowering Act was passed in 1912. On the preamble that it was desirable to empower the appellants to grant to John Burns & Co. a lease of such allotments of land (being other than that marked "V") then in course of reclamation by the appellants at Mechanics Bay, as should be agreed on by the Government, the appellants and John Burns & Co., and to authorize the payment to the appellants of such sum as might be agreed on in consideration of the appellants granting the lease, it was enacted by s. 7 that it should be lawful for the appellants to grant to John Burns & Co., without putting the same up to public auction or public tender, a lease of such allotments on the land then being reclaimed at Mechanics Bay.

Minister of Railway authorized to make payment if the lease was granted: Sub-s. 2 of s. 7 provided that it should be lawful for the Government to undertake for the Crown to pay to the appellant Board such sums as might be agreed upon in consideration of the Board granting the lease to Burns & Co…. Sub-s. 3 provided that it should be lawful for the Minister of Railways (as representing the Government), and he was thereby empowered, without further appropriation than the Act itself, to pay to the appellant Board out of the Public Works Fund such sums as might be payable to the Board by the Crown in accordance with such agreement…. Sect. 7 of the Act of 1912 had conferred on the appellant Board power to grant a lease to Burns & Co. if such a lease had been agreed upon between the Minister, the appellant Board and Burns & Co., and the Minister was given the power to pay to the Board such sum as might be agreed on as consideration for the Board granting the lease.

Pausing here, their Lordships are unable to construe the statute as doing more than conferring on the Minister the power to enter into an agreement, and, but only if and when a lease was granted by the Board in accordance with it.

Claims by the board for the money rejected: On October 27 following the secretary of the Board again wrote saying that the new lots were ready for occupation, and that the Board was in a position to grant the lease to Burns & Co. and had included the 7500l. in a statement, which he enclosed, of the amount due to the appellants from the Government… The Railway Department, however, replied in a letter stating that the 7500l. had been deducted from the amount shown by the statement, pending consideration. The manager answered this letter by insisting that, as the Board was in a position to grant the lease, and that it had only not been issued because of the request of the general manager, the 7500l. was payable. In the end, on December 3, 1914, the district engineer of the Railway Department wrote to the secretary that a voucher for the 7500l. had been passed for payment. Subsequently, however, the general manager wrote to the appellants that he had been advised by the Solicitor-General that the 7500l. paid over to the appellants, in accordance with the voucher passed for payment, had been an illegal payment of public money.

Government had already resorted to alternate arrangements: From what their Lordships have already stated as their view of the transaction, it is apparent that the 7500l. never became payable. The option was never exercised under which Burns & Co. were to be declared by the Government entitled to the lease. In point of fact, the Government shortly after made a different settlement of the claim of Burns & Co., under which the latter did not get the land which was to have been included in it. For in August, 1915, acting under their statutory powers, the Government resumed a part of the land belonging to the appellant Board which included what Burns & Co. were to have had. The appellant Board were compensated for this resumption of the entire land in the manner and on...