Litigants Seek Leave To Appeal To Privy Council

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28234, 23 March 1957, Page 12

Litigants Seek Leave To Appeal To Privy Council

(Neto Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 22. The Court of Appeal had the unusual duty today of determining whether four separate applications for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council should be allowed. Appeals to the Privy Council from the decisions of New Zealand's Court of Appeal are comparatively rare, and that four applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, together with a further application next week, should arise at the same time must be almost without precedent in New Zealand’s legal history. The Court hearing the applications consists of Mr Justice Finlay. Mr Justice North, and Mr Justice Turner.

The first of the four applications heard was by Arthur Gianoutsos and Denis Booleris against the judgment of the Court of Appeal when it granted possession to J. R. McKenzie, Ltd., of the premises let known as the Rose Milk Bar at Lambton quay, Wellington, where the applicants carry on the business of milk bar proprietors and cafeteria owners The Court ordered that leave be granted to appeal on terms similar to those in the tenancy case of McKenna v. Porter Motors, where the applicant was required to forward all necessary documents to London, where the Privy Council hears its appeals, within two months. Husband’s Death The second application was made by Mrs Ewa Perkowski. for whom Mr R. B. Cooke, of Wellington, appeared. Mrs Perkowski’s husband died in 1954 as a result of injuries received when he dived into shallow water off a diving board at Worser Bay, Wellington. Mrs Perkowski brought an action against the Wellington City Corporation for damages, but the trial Judge held that the evidence was not sufficient for liability to be attached to the corporation. When an appeal was made to the Court of Appeal it held that, as a matter of law. the relationship between Mr Perkowski and the corporation was one of occupier and licensee and that the corporation had complied with its obligations to the deceased and therefore Mrs Perkowski could not succeed in her appeal.

From this decision Mrs Perkowski sought leave to appeal to the Privy Council which was this morning granted by the Court of Appeal, as it was an appeal of right under the Privy Council rules.

The only question which complicated the hearing was the amount which should be fixed as security before the applicant brought her appeal, as an appeal is pending by the applicant in the Privy Council for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Court felt itself bound to . fix some amount as security and decided on £lOO as a suitable sum, even although it was probably a formality. Rating Classification The third application was made by Alban Arthur Lancaster for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had dismissed

Lancaster’s appeal against the decision of the Chief Justice, who granted a mandamus requiring a Magistrate to hear appeals against the Manawatu Catchment Board’s rating classification. The Court pointed out to counsel that in accordance with its earlier decision Lancaster had the right to have his objection heard by the Magistrate. Mr G. Crossley, of Palmerston North, submitted for Lancaster that the rating classification did not comply with the statute concerned. The Court noted that it was inclined to think that Lancaster had no civil right worth £5OO. which is essential for an appeal to lie. The Court reserved its decision. Transport Licence The final application was made by Griffin and Sons. Ltd. The decision of the Court of Appeal from which leave to appeal is being sought held that the Chief Justice was correct when he refused to grant a writ of prohibition restraining Judge Archer from hearing and determining an appeal brought by the Railways Department against the granting of a transport licence to Griffin and Sons. Ltd. The present applicant in the earlier proceedings had submitted that Judge Archer had predetermined the subject mdtter of the application in an earlier hearing. The Court reserved its decision.