Charles Gray’s Struggle for Compensation

Charles Gray’s Struggle for Compensation

The original plan for the Plimmerton to Paekākāriki road was to have it running to the east of Pukerua along the line of Muri Road. Gray went to great lengths, against considerable opposition from residents and landowners, to have the new road pass close to his homestead. Gray planned to turn the hall by the tennis courts into a house and move a shed to the golf links. The tennis club had disbanded by this time. Gray’s correspondence with the Public Works Department (PWD) started off harmoniously enough but deteriorated as the months then years went by without resolution. An internal memo in August 1938 stated “The Department is working amicably with Mr Gray and is obtaining gravel and material from his property without charge. These amicable arrangements should not be upset and cannot be without loss and inconvenience to the Department. Under the circumstances an agreement was obtained from Mr Gray whereby he will remove the Hall and leanto to sites to be provided by him and the Department is to pay him the further sum of £214.” (Roads – Wellington Road District – Pukerua Bay claim – Charles Grey. R21067419. Archives New Zealand Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga) The Department also felt that little compensation would be owed to Gray as the arrival of the road significantly increased the value of his sections.

In August 1939 Arthur Lindsay agreed to sell the PWD part of his shop section for £150. The Department also moved the store back from the road.

Centennial Highway was opened with great fanfare on 6 November 1939. [link to Centennial Highway Construction] In the speech by Mr. H. D. Bennett, chairman of the Plimmerton-Paekākāriki Main Highways Deviation Association, Charles Gray was noted as being instrumental, along with Mr W. H. Field, in promoting the highway.

In 1923 Gray had given the Post and Telegraph Department land on the corner of Beach Road and Haunui Road for a future post office which was never built there. The agreement was that the land would revert to Gray if it was not used for a post office. In 1940 when this section was taken for the new road Gray was concerned that the Post and Telegraph Department would receive compensation and not him. This issue was resolved relatively quickly. R21067419

Compensation for the tennis courts and the club rooms was not so easily settled. The PWD contended that the courts were unused and in a state of disrepair. In May 1940 Gray agreed to pay the Public Works Department £40 and in return the Department would construct new tennis courts on land, where the current tennis courts are, provided by Gray.

In November 1940 Charles Gray raised the question of compensation for loss of business while the store was being moved and a month later complained that the interior painting was not satisfactory. The Assistant Under Secretary agreed this was a fair claim and £9 was authorised to be paid to Charles Gray. The big issue was Gray’s land which had been taken for the road.

On 6 December 1940 Gray’s solicitors sent a letter to the Chief Land Purchase Officer of the PWD regarding compensation for land taken for the construction of Centennial Highway.

“Our client desires to point out that you have had physical occupation of these sections for some ¾ years and he considers that he is prejudiced because his claims for compensation are not being dealt with. He considers that there is no reason why the claims in respect of the sections which have been taken in full should not be disposed of and he instructs me that he will require payment of interest from the date when your Department entered upon the land.” (R21067419)

The letter went on to say that if this matter could be dealt with immediately the issue would be brought before the Court for compensation.

In February 1941 Mr E.C. Wiren of Luckie, Wiren and Kenard wrote to the Chief Land Purchasing Officer of the Public Works Department on behalf of Charles Gray:

“We notice that you state that it is most unusual to formulate a claim before the land is taken. This seems to us to be a most extraordinary statement to be made by a responsible Government Department, because you must know that the land was physically occupied by your Department over four years ago.

One of our client’s main complaints is that, apart from the land taken, the tennis court which was interfered with has not been re-laid in accordance with the undertaking of your Department. Our client instructs us to point out that it is now three years ago last October since the existing tennis court was demolished by your workmen, and accordingly four seasons’ play on the court have been lost. You will appreciate that in a district such as Pukerua Bay the presence or absence of a tennis court is a material factor in inducing people to purchase sections there. Our client considers that he has been a very heavy loser owing to the fact that the tennis court has not been available for the last four seasons, and he attributes such loss to the failure of your Department to carry out its undertaking to re-construct the court.

As previously pointed out, most of the land had been occupied by your Department for four years and it seems incomprehensible that the plans of the land to be taken are not yet available. We have waited patiently until the end of January, when you stated that the plans would be available, but so far they have not been forthcoming. You will of course understand that until the plans are available, and we know definitely what land is being taken, out client is not in a position to formulate his full claim for compensation.

We do not know if it is part if the deliberate policy of your Department to withhold the completion of the plans for a considerable period with a view to saving interest on the claim for compensation, but we must confess that it appears to us to be so. We therefore now request you to supply us with a full and detailed note of all the land of our client that you intend to take, so that we may place his claim for compensation before the Compensation Court immediately.

As previously advised, we intend to claim, in addition to compensation, interest from the time when you actually went into possession of the land. It would appear to us that the delay in the matter has now reached an unreasonable stage.

Yours faithfully

C. Wiren” (R21067419)

When the detailed plans were produced Gray could not find the pegs and was unable to calculate the extent of land taken. Through Luckie, Wiren & Kennard he asked for an officer of the department to come out to Pukerua Bay to point out the pegs.

In June 1941 Gray wrote to the District Engineer of the PWD saying he was very dissatisfied with the new tennis courts. “As tennis courts they are practically useless and not up to the specifications of those destroyed. May I point out to you that my tennis courts have been four seasons out of commission and I estimate the loss of income from them at approx. £30 per year. The absence of tennis courts here have curtailed sales of my building lots and therefore caused me financial loss.” (R21067419)

In August that year Luckie, Wiren & Kennard wrote to the Assistant Under Secretary of the PWD saying that although the Proclamation for land taken had been made it had not been registered. “In the meantime, owing to our client’s state of health, we desire to have his claim for compensation filed immediately.”

In March 1942 Gray’s lawyers sent the PWD his claim which was for £15,841/2/6 the approximate equivalent of $1,824,686 at the end of 2023. Later that month yet another letter was sent to the PWD by Mr Wiren that included this statement:

“it is also several months since I informed you that Mr Gray was a very sick man, that both his sons were away overseas, and that if anything happened to Mr Gray, Mrs Gray would be in an awkward predicament.

As regards these claims, moreover, the fact that the claims have been outstanding for some five years have, to my own knowledge, caused a lot of worry and irritation to Mr Gray. Over the last few weeks his state of health has deteriorated further. Mrs Gray rang me yesterday and implored me to try and get these matters settled as they were affecting Mr Gray’s health.”

He went on to say:

“It may not be possible to settle them but at least I think your Department should have long ago made some attempt to do so. After all, it is almost five years since Mr Gray’s land was taken and he has not received one penny compensation. You have had his land and he has had nothing but worry. I think you must agree that your Department’s attitude in this matter has been one of frustration and has not been calculated to induce any amicable settlement. I might as well state quite openly that it has infuriated my client to breaking point. If the matter cannot be settled amicably, then the Court will have to decide. I have been willing to discuss settlement for some months and months but there has never been any approach in this direction.” (R21067419)

Other claims relating to land taken for the new road had already been settled for some time. The PWD had claimed that it was the pressure of “war matters” that prevented Gray’s claim being dealt with. The reply from the Hon H T Armstrong, Minister of Public Works, included the statement, “I can assure you that any delay in the matter is not due to a desire to embarrass your client in any way. I hope that as a result of the Chief Land Purchase Officer’s discussion with you a settlement satisfactory to both sides will be arrived at.” (R21067419)

In June 1942 Gray’s solicitors contacted the PWD to say he was not happy with some of the work in moving the store and the new tennis court fence, which should have been palings, had blown down. The PWD was becoming somewhat exasperated as this stage and the response included the statement, “These late demands for extras are typical of all dealings with Mr Gray.”

On 22 December 1942 Cabinet approved the payment of £3,500 to Mr. and Mrs. Gray. The detailed Deed of Acquittance which had been hammered out itemised the actions the Crown would undertake which would “hereby release and discharge the Crown from all actions suits claims demands and proceedings whatsoever either at law or in equity arising out of the taking of the said land.”

On 17 February 1943 the Deed of Acquittance was formally signed by Robert Semple, Minister of Public Works; William Arnold, Government Insurance Commissioner; Charles Gray and Elizabeth Gray. Gray’s battle for compensation was finally over.

Charles Gray died six months later on 6 August,1943.

Pukerua Bay School closed for a half day on the day of his funeral. (1940 – 1949 Pukerua Bay School Log Book. p53)

---

“OBITUARY

CHARLES GRAY

The death occurred in Wellington yesterday after a long illness of Mr. Charles Gray, whose home was at Pukerua Bay, in the development of which district he had taken a very prominent part for years. Mr. Gray was born at Pahautanui. He farmed at Horokiwi and later acquired a property at Pukerua Bay, which has subsequently grown into a flourishing township, though it was but sparsely settled when he first went there. With Mr. W. H. Field, he was largely responsible for the ultimate construction of the new main highway along the coast. For 20 years he had strongly advocated this project, even having a survey made at his own expense. Mr. Gray, who was a member of the Masonic fraternity, was noted for his acts of generosity. He was a member of the Wellesley Club, and is survived by his wife, his daughter, Nancy, and two sons. One son, Lindsay, a flight lieutenant is chief liaison officer for the R.N.Z.A.F. at Cairo. The younger son, Donald, completed his education at Cambridge University (England) and is the author of a recently published book which has brought him distinction. Mrs. Gray is well known for her active work on behalf of the Plunket Society.” (Evening Post, 9 August 1943, p3)

---

By Ashley Blair