In 1930, an application by De Lacey Ltd, Painters and Decorators, was lodged in the Supreme Court against the Mayor, councillors and citizens of Richmond requesting that clause 32 of the borough bylaws be quashed.
De Lacey had been granted permission to erect a hoarding in Richmond in 1926, but this was later withdrawn and all other applications were refused.
The large sign, once up, became subject to a £2 annual license fee, but when contacted to pay it De Lacey declined and queried the amount as being excessive.
The matter was then handed to the borough solicitor.
Eventually going to the Supreme Court, the case was heard by Mr Justice Kennedy.
Mr Kerr, lawyer for De Lacey, moved for an order quashing part of clause 32 of the bylaw relating to hoarding signs fees charged on the ground that the bylaw was invalid by reason that the fee was excessive.
The general view of De Lacey was that the bylaw was to prevent hoardings while the defendants claimed that it was to preserve the natural beauty of the township.
By the Mayor’s affidavit, it was stated that displays of advertisements had increased and were a disfigurement on the borough, detracting from the value of properties in the vicinity and affecting the amenities of the borough and that it was the policy of the council to discourage the erection of hoardings and the display of advertising.
In investigation of the matter, it was declared that it was reasonable for a council to charge a fee to recuperate the costs in administering the bylaw but it could not be used as a way to raise revenue. In the case of this bylaw there was almost nil administration.
The £2 fee in Richmond was found to be the highest charged in New Zealand with the usual fee in cities being around 10s and in some places no fee was charged at all.
The judgement of Kennedy was given late April 1930.
He found for the plaintiff and granted the application, stating although the expense of administering the bylaw was nil the borough still imposed in respect of any hoarding an annual license fee of £2 per 100 square feet.
It was not intended that license fees might be levied for revenue purposes.
The fee charged was by far in excess of that charged by other cities and boroughs, in fact, so unreasonably high that it amounted to a tax for revenue purposes. Therefore, this part of the bylaw was not supported and the cost charged was made invalid.
The bylaw was not quashed but had to be amended on a scale of reasonable license fees.
Costs of £8.8sh and disbursements were allowed against the Council and £5 paid as security to be returned to the applicant.
