Playcentre label at heart of fight

The Court of Appeal has been asked to rule whether a playcentre is legally a school in a multimillion-dollar fight over prime Queenstown land between the former owners and the Government.

The 680sq m section near the heart of the town was compulsorily bought for a school in 1960 under the Public Works Act, but given to the local playcentre in 1980 after the school moved out.

Now the original owners, the Hood family of Queenstown, want to buy the land back at its 1980 value, saying the Government should have offered it to them then when it was no longer needed for a school.

They have an agreement to resell the land at more recent prices to Queenstown service station owner Maurice Murphy, who wants to shift there from his cramped site on the other side of the road.

Mr Murphy, who is paying for the court action being taken in the names of James, Robert and Kenneth Hood, also has an agreement to buy the two sections on either side of the Hood land if the case succeeds.

It is understood the various sections concerned are worth several million dollars at today's values.

The High Court rejected the Hoods' claim against Attorney-General Margaret Wilson last December.

But their lawyer, Bill Wilson, QC, argued in the Court of Appeal in Wellington yesterday that the land had not been used for a school since 1979 and thus should have been offered back to the Hoods.

The law requires that land taken compulsorily should be offered back to its original owners or their descendants if no longer needed for the purpose for which it was taken.

The Crown argues that the parent-run playcentre is legally a school.

Mr Wilson said the playcentre used a former school building next to the Hood section but only from 9am until 12.30pm each day. It leased out parking spaces on the Hood section to a rental car company.

Crown lawyer Malcolm Parker said the carpark was still used by parents to drop their children off.

He said there were references in reports to Parliament in 1959 and 1960 to playcentres as part of "primary education" and laws at the time mentioned "pre-schools".

Mr Parker said the fact that the playcentre had used the property since 1980 showed it met the Public Works Act requirement to show there was a "need" for the land.

The case is before Justice John McGrath, Justice Susan Glazebrook and Justice Mark O'Regan, who reserved their decision.

- NZPA