Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11829] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 That was what one would expect from Dr Worth—an outstanding contribution. So I do not need to spend long dealing with Part 2 of the Property Law Bill. It is a very interesting part of the bill. Subpart 1 brings together rules about deeds powers of appointment and powers of attorney which may seem to be dry dusty and boring but which are actually very important indeed. Those changes will result in the repeal of quite ancient legislation. 
For anyone who is interested in law reform and in some of the changes that are being made by this legislation one need go no further than Subpart 7. I am surprised that Dr Worth who is such an eminent legal historian did not spend some time looking at Subpart 7 because it deals with the abolition and modification of common law rules relating to property. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Well I’d better take another call then. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think Dr Worth should take another call because I very much would like to hear from him about the effect of clause 57 and the abolition of feudal incidents of estate in fee simple. In fact I would love for the Minister to take a call and explain that to us. That really would be interesting. 
I ask members to look at clause 58—and I think Dr Worth could address this as well—which is entitled: “Abolition of obsolete estates and rules”. I ask members to look at what is going as a result of this ground-breaking legislation constituting such a major reform of property law for the first time in 55 years. Under clause 58(1)(a) estates tail and estates by wrong go. Under clause 58(1)(b) the making of a forfeiture by any conveyance goes. Under clause 58(1)(c) the passing of the legal estate in any land by certain means—a covenant to stand seized and a contract for the sale and purchase of land—goes. 
Indeed one of the changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee made was to remove the provisions of clause 58(3). Members of the Committee will see that originally this clause as drafted would have abolished the rule of law known as the rule in Shelley’s case. I would be most grateful if the Minister could take a call and explain to us what the rule in Shelly’s case was. We took the view that the rule in Shelley’s case had already gone. I refer members to page 2 of the commentary which talks about the rule in Shelley’s case and to the fact that section 22 of the Property Law Act 1952 had already abolished that rule. Unless one is a member of New Zealand First—whose members have a tendency to introduce legislation that seeks to repeal or abolish points of law or rules of law that have already been abolished—there would seem to be no point in trying to do that. 
This is a very interesting subpart. It is the sort of thing that will interest law students in years to come. These ancient common law rules relating to property all go in this modernising statute. I commend Subpart 7 to members because it does make very interesting reading indeed. 
Part 2 is very important. It deals with the general rules relating to dispositions instruments transactions and property—the sorts of things that affect all of us on a day-to-day basis—and as I said Subpart 7 deals with the modification and abolition of common law rules relating to property. It is very interesting it is very important and at the end of the day it is very practical. That is why National is supporting Part 2.