PRICE ORDER FOR HOTELS

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26125, 30 May 1950, Page 3

PRICE ORDER FOR HOTELS

QUASHING SOUGHT BY LICENSEE POWERS OF TRIBUNAL QUESTIONED (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON. May 29. A writ of certiorari leading to the quashing of price order 1000 which governs some hotel tariffs in Wellington, was sought by Francis Dwyer, a hotel proprietor and licensee, before Mr Justice Gresson in the Supreme Court to-day. Dwyer was represented by Mr R. E. Harding. The defendants were Mr Justice Hunter. Philip North Holloway (members of the Price Tribunal), and Henry Leslie Wise, director of Price Control, and they were represented by the Solicitor-General (Mr H. E. Evans. K.C.), who had with him Mr E. A. Haughey. Dwyer had had notice of prosecution for failure to comply with the price order, said Mr Harding, but proceedings had been delayed to enable the present issue to be determined. Counsel were agreed that if the plaintiff were successful, proceedings in the Lower Court would be withdrawn, and if the plaintiff failed he would plead guiltv to the charges. There was general agreement on the facts, said Mr Harding, and affidavits would be produced in support of the facts. Dwyer claimed that Price Order 1000 was invalid on the following grounds:—that the plaintiff had not been heard by the tribunal before the order was made; that there was no evidence before the tribunal on which an order could have been made; that the classification of hotels on the star system had been copied from an Automobile Association handbook; and that the powers of the tribunal did not extend to making such an order. Refusal to Comply

Dwyer had been advised that the order was not binding on him and had refused to comply with it, continued Mr Harding. He had posted a notice in the foyer of his hotel informing guests that he would charge higher rates than those in the order. Mr Harding said th-t although there were 46 hotels in Wellington, 12 of them only had been graded and had their tariffs fixed under the order. The defendants admitted in their statement of defence that the plaintiff had not been heard, but claimed he had been given opportunity to be heard at an advertised and reported public hearing on April 8. ±949. before the issue of the order on May 12, 1949. It claimed that the tribunal had had the benefit of advice from the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, the Invercargill Licensing Trust, Thomas Cook and Son. and other organisations before reaching its decisions on hotel tariffs.

Mr Evans argued that everything covered by the control order involved the sale of goods or the performance of services and the control of charges for these had been authorised. The Court reserved its decision.