NEWSPAPER SALE

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20215, 18 April 1931, Page 16

NEWSPAPER SALE

"SUN" PROPERTY AT AUCKLAND.

JUDGMENT OF COURT. APPLICATION BY PURCHASER ; ■ DISMISSED, [THE PRESS Special Service.] WELLINGTON, April. 17. "If it can be said that 'there was" a mistake made by the umpire; I think that the mistake was in regard to a matter within his jurisdiction, and,, that being so, I am of the opinion that, the purchasing company • cannot, succeed in its present application,", said the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in delivering reserved judgment in the Court of Appeal to-day in 'the case in which New Zealand Newspapers, Limited, asked the Court to . set aside,or at least remit for a. valuation of the land and buildings of the Sun Newspapers, Limited, building in Auckland made by Sir Walter Stringer, who was called as umpire when the valuers appointed under a sale and purchase agreement by the two newspaper companies failed to agree.

The case was heard before the Court of Appeal last month. Judgments concurring w)th : the conclusions of the Chief Justice were giyon.by.Mr Justice; .Reed,and Mr. Justice Smith., Tho Chief Justice. announced that he had been requested by Mr Justice Adams to say that he concurred with the judgment; .and Mr Justice Ostler, while he had not seen the Chief Justice ?s judgment, had intimated that he was' in agreement with the conclusions that had.' been drawn. On September 17th, 1930,', the two companies entered /into :'aof agreement whereby New Zealand Nejtffn 1 papers, Limited, were to purchase tain assets of- the Sun Newspapers,-; Limited. Two valuers were ap-* pointed, one by each company; : but: they failed to agfee on'certain points, and Sir Walter Stringor, was called in-, as umpire. Sir Walter fixed the value of the land and buitdibgs of the "Sua" in Auckland , at/ jfi 59,000. When this; valuation was received, Slt-Cecil Leys, managing director of Ne,w. > -Zealand Newspapers,. Limited, wrote-to Sir Wal-. ter Stringer alleging that the assessment had been made on the wrong basis, and "with an utter disregard of indisputable facts placed before you of the Government valuation of the land and buildings, and of the restriction imposed by the contract relative to the method of ascertaining the value of' the premises."

Comment On a Letter. "The tvro-. companies settled the agreement "Without professional advice,'' said'his Honour in part of the judgment. "They acted as their own lawyers. , It Would pot.be surprising ifthfcy havftj-ainceyreflected upon th&, .wisdomof » well-known aphwt&niy, fa f i award. > in ings was.a lester,g2ited November,2&th, 1930/ from' the managing ' director of the purchasing l company to Sir t Walter. Stringer, which to my pundt was, to say the It has no b^rins?-On r the present pute; but. f;so/not "think it should bflt passed oyer, ; t csnsur&. ' Such a, letter should -hot hav« .beej» written byj' any litigant pefsdq who,'"'ln* .a' judicial «r quasifjudtcial ..capacity, ■ ijtfe eided a "matte? to-'wmeh the ;*was a t>fcrty." - .-s: "Sir Walter StfingOT,' disregarding > another well-known' and' wise= aphorism, ' on' December, sth ' sent' a reply' to ths managing ( director of the ' purchasing' company, purporting to staj;a cipie upon which-.he", valuation, \ . . _Th 6 p pany then" or! an the umpire fof tecoMideratiOto/ "nponlWl ground that he,adopted'a prJncipijß jthfrt, waa erroneous In'law. ./But f«r;thepm-: pire'a letter and affidavit,-* claarfy the present- proceeding*- could not "have bdenbrought. No - other than.the umpire's own' brbught before 'the. UKe'pur--phasing ' company'fc j^i^Bcn.,,» „■< Valuation "

"The first observation that, should be made, I think', is that no exception, is' taken to the umpire's method of valu- ' ing the land;, it is /the method of valuing the, building to which objection is made. The next is' that, though the purchasing company might have applied to the umpire daring tB6?cCHUB& of the. .arbitration to state a case for the' opinion 'of the" Supreme Court, no such application was made. Furthermore,* it appears-from Sir- 1 Walter i affidavit that when the matter was before him the purchasing company shaped its case in a certain way, its contention being that as the company did not require, and did l not intend to use the premises for'the purpose of ' : a newspaper and publishing business, the valuation- should, be .made, upon' a basis of the necessity of' reconstructing the interior j)f the building at a cost" of i several thousands Vf pounds, and, the ifl«' oidme . derivable from ' the' premises after> such reconstruction ihad been effected/ "It was expressly admitted-.at the Bar that so evidence was.,adduced before the umpire in ' support- of ; any valuation on q basis''of'the method which, itisnowclaimedjhe should have adopted—in other.wqrds, the purchasing* company now seeks to make out a different case from that which it presented before the umpire. • "Clettrlythe umpire was right in-not accepting the! contention laid before bim on behalf of the purchasing company. It might be added'that there is nothing before the Court to show that the purchasing company, has power -to traffic in real estate,' or acquire land and buildings for any' other than .the main, objeetlof the company's business.' ? Later, his Honour said that hj» did not think it coulfl be said that the umpire necessarily valued the premises <fn a wrong principle. . Even if the.umpire was wrong, however, he did not, think that his error would amount tj> an excess. of jurisdiction. ,He was required to value the land and buildings, * and he had done so.

' "The umpire does not request the Cpurt to remit the > award'' back to him' on the ground of a mistake,concluded his Honour. "He does not admit having made a mistake;-indeed, 'he asserts the contrary. For the above reasons, the application in my opinion fails, and must be dismissed." . Hia Honour considered that 100 guineas, plus disbursements,' would be reasonable costs for the, purchasing.company to pay.