BUICK SALES, LTD.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18507, 8 October 1925, Page 6

BUICK SALES, LTD.

\ APPEAL COURT CASE* (PHBS3 ASSOCIi.IIOS' TEMBEAIT-J WELLINGTON, October t. tTho Court of Appeal was engaged this morning in tho hearing of an, appeal from a decision by Mr Justice Reed in a caad under the Companies Act, 1902. The parties wore Charles James Jones, Christchurch, motor salesman, and tho official liquidator oi Buick Sales, Ltd. The matter began in September by o summons before the Supreme Court issued by tho official liquidator and requesting Jones to show rauso why ho should not be declared liable to contribute to the assets of the company in liquidation compensation in respect of his misfeasances and breaches of trust while acting as a director of the company. At the hearing of tho suramonr; before Mr Jnstiee Reed, preliminary objor.tion was raised by counsel for Jones that the liquidator had no standing in the case, and could not bring misfeasance proceedings in that the receiver appointed by the, bank had assigned all misfeasance claims to Blackwell Motora, LidCounsel for Jones also stated that Ibey had authority from Blackwell Motors, Ltd., to state that tho latter objected to tho liquidator bringing misfeasance proceedings. No formal summons was filed, on behalf of Blackwell Motors to a stay of proceedings by the liquidator, but by consent of all parties the application was treated as if it had been mado on behalf of Blackwell Motors. This course was adopted as counsel anticipated that misfeasance enquiries would be long and costly, and it was desired to have a derision on th 9 preliminary question. Lengthy and involved argument was heard by tho Judge, who decided that Blackwell Motors had no standing in the matter, misfeasance not being assignable, and that he must ovorrulo the preliminary objection. . Mr Myers, K.C., and Mr Gresson appeared for appellant, and Mr A. T. Donnelly for the respondent, tho official liquidator. The Court reserved its decision.