PRICE ORDER ATTACKED

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25933, 13 October 1949, Page 6

PRICE ORDER ATTACKED

ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SUBMISSIONS FOR PLAINTIFF (New Zealand Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 12. The methods acopted by the Price Tribunal in fixing the prices of goods were outlined in part before Mr Justice Hutchison in tne Supreme Court in the case m which F. E. Jackson and Company, Ltd., of Auckland, is seeking a writ of certiorari removing into the Supreme Court Price Order 1001 with the object oi quashing the order. P. N. Holloway, a member of the tribunal, cross-examined by Mr A. K. North, K.C., said that, although the act stated that public hearings should be held, it had been found in the early days of the tribunal that there was little public interest. As a result of public hearings, work had banked up. It had been decided to hear those with relevant information to give the tribunal. He said the tribunal was responsible for seeing that the spirit of the act was observed. . The witness agreed that there was no doubt that Jackson and Company and other Auckland merchants dissociated themselves from the Hardware Guild, from any agreement between + he Director of Price Control and the guild, and also objected to the imposition of the deadline date (Price Order 1091 fixed the deadline for retail prices on hardware goods landed in New Zealand before the appreciation of the New Zealand £ on August 18. 1948). The witness said the plaintiff company had asked for a public hearing at which evidence could be adduced but in view of the mass of information available regarding the company's stocks and the general position it had not been considered necessary to hear anything further. The witness said that the company lost its opportunity of being heard further in the matter through the action of the tribunal in issuing Price Order 1031 before further correspondence could take place. He appreciated that legally the tribunal could have been restrained from its action but did not agree that a profound mistake had been made. The tribunal was free to act as it thought fit and was not under the directon of the Minister nor was it bound by agreements reached between the Director of Price Control' and traders. In the event of controls being removed entirely from one industry by the Government, then the tribunal would acknowledge the fact. The Solicitor-General (Mr H. E. Evans. K.C.) called Gainor Jackson, head of the plaintiff company, for cross-examination about stocks affected by the price order. Examined by Mr North, the witness said H. L. 1 Wise. Director of Price Control, had been most reluctant to grant the plaintiff an interview with the tribunal. In his submissions Mr North said it was an accepted principle that justice not only should be done but also should appear to be done. The only possible way of ensuring that justice would be done was bv a public sitting. Mr North said the Director of Price Control intended to negotiate where possible and. where negotiations could not be brought to a conclusion, to hold a public hearing or hearings. He began to make some progress with the New Zealand Hardware Guild, which he apparently felt was an adequately representative body. The advent of the Auckland Hardware Merchants’ Committee put a spoke in the wheel and the 'position really required to be reviewed. It was clear that both the director and Hollowav knew before the negotiations with the guild ended that the Auckland people dissociated themselves from representations by the guild and also from any agreement that might be reached by the guild. It was perfectly clear that the plaintiff not only did not get a reply to a request for a public hearing but that a reply was not posted till it was too late, said Mr North. “This is an example of a delayed reply in inexcusable circumstances.” he said. The case is expected to finish tomorrow.