Advocate Rebuked By Court

Press, Volume C, Issue 29643, 13 October 1961, Page 21

Advocate Rebuked By Court

Press Assoetattonj

‘ 1 WELLENGTON, Oct 12. The Arbitration Court today ruled that the Welling- ■ ton and Hutt Valley Master Burdens’ Association could ' not be compelled to produce in Court, minutes of meetings held by the employer* in May this year. The Court ■ w»* hearing a claim for a new carpenters’ award. Under subpoenas issued by the Court, the secretary of the New Zealand Carpenters’ Union (Mr F. W. Molyneux* sought to have three officials give evidenc* before ■ the Court and produce : minutes of master builders' meetings held on May 8, 11 and 16. I Accusations from the Bench iof highly improper procedure. the threat of a fine for contempt of Court, as well as very lively exchangee between advocates, arose from an attempt by Mr Molineux to have the witnesses produce reports of a meeting of a special sub-committee set up to determine policy regarding wage rates. The employers’ advocate (Mr P. J. Luxford) submitted that under section 46 of the Industrial and Arbitration Act, 1954, the persons subpoenaed could not be compelled to give evidence or I produce the reports. "I can find no reference to a similar subpoena being issued in the history of this | court,” said Mr Luxford. ■ Bench's Comment When Mr Molineux was making his submissions for the reports to be produced, he mentioned a matter of dei tail which was contained in one of the documents. Mr Justice Tyndall: That isi

highly improper, Mr Molineux. If you are not careful I will have you fined for contempt of Court. Mr Molineux: I’m afraid I don't understand your Honour. Mr Justice Tyndall: You mentioned a figure and disclosed something you had no right to. His Honour added that Mr Molineux had called for document* which the statute deemed highly confidential. Mr Molineux: I apologise to the Court. Mr Luxfcrd said that the production of the report* would hinder settlement being reached in Conciliation. Mr A. B. Grant (employees’ representative): I understand and sympathise with you. Mr Luxfocd, but I ean't see how you can take away a Mr Molineux contended that the report* contained matters relevant to the proceeding*. “We have a right to call witnesses who should be heard,” he said. Mr Luxford: You have no legal right to those report*. Mr Molineux: That is a sweeping statement. I hop* Mr Luxford is hot suggesting I came into possession of those reports illegally. After a two-hour adjournment to consider the application, which had been vigorously opposed by Mr Luxford. hi* Honour said application to create the dispute had not been lodged until . May 20, which was after the meetings had been held- The Court was not competent to consider the domestic affairs i i of bodies which were not

registered under the I.C. and A Art. Any of the three witness** subpoenaed could be called and might be compelled to give evidence. However, they could not be compelled to give evidence relating to the documents referred to and the documents need not be produced. No submissions relating to the matter* contained in the documents could be referred to before the Court. Hi* Honour arid that if Mr Mdineux wished to consult hi* legal adviser he was entitled to an adjournment Mr Molineux said that he did not, at that moment, intend to ask for legal advice.