Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Auckland Harbour Board V. King Notes

BCL Law Notes > Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Auckland Harbour Board V. King document, which we sell as part of our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

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

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.

More Restitution Of Unjust Enrichment Bcl Samples