VALUATION DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 66, 19 March 1931, Page 8

VALUATION DISPUTE

AUCKLAND "SUN" PREMISES Legal argument was concluded yesterday afternoon m the Court of Appeal in the case between I\cw Zealand Newspapers, Ltd, anVl-.^un Newspapers, Ltd., in which New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., disputed the valuation of Sir Walter Stringer of the = iand and buildings of Sun Newspapers,> Auckland. The Court -reserved its decision. Mr. A. H. johnstone ; Jand Mr. H. Eogerson appeared for-New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., whp appi>e,d to have the valuation award to Sir Walter for reconsideration; and Mr. B. H. North croft, of Auckland, with Mr. P. B. Cooke and Mr. It-J. V. James, of Wellington, for Sun Newspapers, Ltd. . On another braiich* 6f. argument yesterday afternoon; v following points made by Mr. Northcrof t,. ; >lr. Cooke put forward two. propositions: (1) That the agreement betweeri -the two. parties left Sir Walter^Strmgei-; free to value in any reasonableibr recognised way. In particular-, it %d not, for instance, obliged him to consider'what the property would have brought on the market. (2)' Assuming' that the terms, of the contract obliged tho umpire to consider what could have been obtained on the ! market, they' clearly cojiflded to him i iurisdiction to: adopt any reasonable or recognised method of ascertaining the market value: : There -was nothing xn the umpire's letter,'Mr, Cooke contended/ to-show that.Sir Walter_ con-sidered^r-rhteld thatnp,ttarket existed. ■onless, the/applicants to the Court could show that Sir Walter was not justified in holding tLe market existed, cost, less depreciation, was a recognised and reasonable method of ascertaining market value. Dealing, with, the assumption that- there was. a mistake within the'arbiiirator's jurisdiction, counsel contended- that, notwittistanding, the Court of Appeal could not correct it for the following three reasons: (1) it was not the kind of mistakoiiha't would induce the Court to interfere; (2). that there was no expressed judgment by the arbitrator. :pf,a conscious mistake ; (3)! th"e:'arbitrator had not himself asked the Court to correctthe mistake. '•:In' intimating that' tho^Court; Wfluld reservei: is decision, -. the Chief^Justice (Sir- Michael' Myers);'said, that' .'the Court wasandebted:to;coujiselrforsboth parties' f Hi' tlie careful 'and! very-' -'interesting .argument.. ,v, : '. '■'/. : ..;. ..; -,