XN000022-1978-11-29 — Page 25

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1978

23

PARTITION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1978

*****

A BILL WHICH SEEKS TO BRING IN CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE PARTITION ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE PARTITION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1978, THE ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE HON. DAVID BOY SAID THIS WOULD ENABLE COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MORTGAGEE, WHETHER HE WAS A MORTGAGEE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OR ONLY A SHARE OF THE PROPERTY.

MR. BOY POINTED OUT THAT UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE A MORTGAGEE COULD BE ADDED AS A PARTY IN THE PROCEEDINGS IF HIS PRESENCE BEFORE THE COURT WAS CONS IDERED DESIRABLE AND THAT NO ORDER FOR PARTITION COULD BE MADE WHICH WOULD PREJUDICE HIM UNLESS HE WAS MADE A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS.

+THIS IS CONSIDERED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS TO MORTGAGEES, MR. BOY SAID.

MR. BOY EXPLAINED THAT A MORTGAGEE OF AN ENTIRE PROPERTY IN THE LAND CANNOT LEGALLY BE AFFECTED BY ANY ORDER FOR PARTITION WHICH THE COURT MAY MAKE UNDER THE ORDINANCE, SO THERE WOULD BE NO GOOD REASON WHY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ORDINANCE SHOULD DEPEND ON HIS CONSENT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, HE ADDED, A MORTGAGEE OF ONLY A SHARE OF THE PROPERTY COULD BE AFFECTED. BUT, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, A PARTITION WILL NOT NECESSARILY PREJUDICE HIM.+

+THERE IS NO GOOD REASON, THEREFORE, WHY HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PREVENT THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS SIMPLY BY WITHHOLDING HIS CONSENT PERHAPS QUITE UNREASONABLY, MR. BOY SAID.

+NONE OF THE JOINT TENANTS OR TENANTS IN COMMON, INCLUDING HIS OWN MORTGAGOR, IS IN THIS PRIVILGED POSITION, HE ADDED.

MR. BOY ADDED THAT THE BILL WILL ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ONLY A JOINT TENANT, TENANT IN COMMON OR LEGAL MORTGAGEE OF A TENANT IN COMMON MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

*THE VAGUENESS OF EXPRESSION IN THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE ON

THIS ASPECT HAS LED TO SOME DOUBT, MR. BOY SAID.

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.