BIAS PROVED.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18901, 17 January 1927, Page 13

BIAS PROVED.

TAKAPUNA COUNCIL.

YELLOW BUS CO.'S LICENSES

LTHE TRESS Bp«cixl Sirricf.J

AUCKLAND, January 16

A judgment of great importance- was given in the Supreme Court to-day, Mr Justice Stringer and Mr Justice Heed upholding the application of the Yellow Bus service (Devonport to Takapuna) for a writ to prohibit the Takapuna Borough Council from acting as No. 2 Licensing Authority under the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, 1926. The grounds for action were alleged to be bias on the part of tho Council. In giving judgment, Mr Justice Stringer said that plaintiff had lor more than three years . prior to the passing of the Act been engaged in. the legitimate business of convoying passengers from Devonport to Milroru . through a portion of tho borough ot Takapuna. Under the new Act the Takapuna Borough Council was appointed the licensing authority, and it was admitted that they had undertaken to purchase and electrify the tramway system. Plaintiff objected to their appointment, claiming that tho Council had disqualified itself from acting as a, .licensing authority by pre-detcnmning to refuse all licenses. "If thcro is one principle which forms an integral part of English law," said his Honour, ''it is that every member of a body which is entrusted,with judicial powers shall be free from bias, and if a person has such bias he ought not to take part in decisions or even to sit upon a tribunal." It was perfectly clear in the present case, his Honour added, that certain fundamental principles had been encroached upon. Tho Council had undertaken the purchase and conversion of the tramway system, and vs the new licensing authority it included persons who were to a certain extent interested. The question the Court had to settlo was whether these people had disqualified themselves from being able to act in a proper judicial manner with regard to applications for motor-bus licenses. It seemed perfectly clear that they had made some arrangement 'with the tramway company to exclude motor-bus competition in consideration of them (tho Council) receiving a portion of the resulting profit. Had that continued it would have effectually prevented the Council from acting as a judicial authority, but it had fallen through, and the tramway company having expressed their inability to electrify tho system tho Council determined to purchase and electrify so as to make an effective service of. it. They had, of course, to go to tho electors for authority to mako the ..purchase and raise the necessary loan for the conversion of the system, and in the- course of the electoral campaign they had expressed their avowed inten- | tion of eliminating competition from ■ service. They had said in so many words that the Legislature liad delivered tho motor-bus owners into their hands and they intended to extinguish them and thereby obtain a complete monopoly. "It seems to me," continued his Honour, "a travesty of justice to send plaintiff to such a body for consideration of his right to have licenses under the new Act. A prior determination in this matter is an absolute disqualification, the Council has put itself in a position whereby it is disqualified from adjudicating in regard to -the issue of license!."

As had already been pointed out, continued his Honour, the Governor-in-Council had authority to appoint a new body to adjudicate ill the matter, and the Court recommended that this courso should be adopted. Judgment ' was accordingly given against the Council with costs on the appointed scale. '. *