THIRD PARTY NOTICE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19376, 31 July 1928, Page 12

THIRD PARTY NOTICE.

! APPLICATION REFUSED. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, July 30. In the full Court the case Cable and Co. y. Teagle, Smith and Sons, was decided. The unanimous judgment of the Court was: "There is not jurisdiction in this case to give leave to serve a third party notice out of New Zealand, but, even if there had been, the case is one in which the Court, in tfhe exercise of its discretion, should refuse defendant's application." The motion was dismissed with £5 5s costs to plaintiff. [The case was an interesting point on procedure in which an application was made by the defendant company to issue a third party notice against the company carrying on business in England. The facts leading to this application were that the plaintiff company purchased from the defendant certain machinery which was alleged to be defective and not in accordance with the warranties- given. Negotiations failing, a writ of summons was accordingly issued against the defendant claiming the sum of £1363 17s od. On .receipt of this the defendant company applied to the Court for leave to issue a third party notice against the Atlas Engineering Co., a company carrying on a manufacturing business in England, from whom the defendant company had originally purchased the macninery. This application came before Mr Justioe Smith and was dismissed. The defendant company then appealed to the Full Court for a review of this decision of Mr Justice Smith. For the applicant it was alleged that irreparable injury would bo caused to the defendant company if leave to issue this notice was refused. The plaintiff company, on the other'hand, contended that tjie issue of such a notice would mean a delay of approximately twelve months in bringing this case to trial.]