Counsel Critical Of Conduct Of Hearing

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30426, 28 April 1964, Page 14

Counsel Critical Of Conduct Of Hearing

“I consider you are being grossly unfair in the way you are conducting this hearing,” Mr A. D. Holland said to the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority (Mr J. -S. Haywood) during the hearing of an application by Hertz Rent-A-Car, Ltd., Christchurch, for the transfer of rental - service licences from Archibalds Garage, Ltd., yesterday.’ Mr Holland was objecting to “the authority’s constant interruption” of Mr R. A. Mac Kay, of Wellington, counsel for the New Zealand Rental Vehicle Proprietors’ Association, during Mr MacKay’s cross-examination of Torben Gunner Jarlbaek, managing director in Australia and New Zealand, of the applicant company. Mr Mac Kay was questioning Jarlbaek on the company’s charges in Auckland, and alleged there had been overcharging. He continued on this subject although told several times by Mr Haywood that he had no power to set rates, vary them, or enforce them. Mr Haywood said he was puzzled as to why he was being treated to this business of rates. “What have rates to do with a simple matter of a transfer?” he asked Mr MacKay. Objection At this point Mr Holland rose with his objection. On. being told by Mr Haywood to take his seat, Mr Holland remained standing and repeated his objection. Mr Haywood told him to take his protest to a higher authority Mr Holland replied that the matter might well go further, but he was taking the opportunity of making a personal protest to the authority, concerned, as was his custom. Mr Haywood said that the .ring was getting out of hand. However, he allowed Mr Mac Kay to continue to cross-examine Jarlbaek on his company’s hire rates. When Mr Mac Kay had finished, the authority asked Mr Holland whether he was indulging in a threat as the friend of the tribunal. “You mentioned that this matter may go further," he said. Mr Holland replied that he did not withdraw anything he had said. “I thought you were about to make a ruling which vitally affected my client (Mutual Rental Cars. Ltd ) before I could be heard.

: ’ >ur constant interruptions and arguments with Mr MacKay, it appeared to me, meant you were about to stop him, and I wanted to have my say." Mr Haywood asked whether they would not get on more fairly if they restrained asperity towards each other. Mr Holland replied that it d’d not greatly concern him how they got on. “You will be fully and fairly heard/’ said Mr Haywood. Other Objectors The application was also opposed by David Crozier, Ltd. (Mr A. Hearn), and Gold Band Services, Ltd. (Mr H. W Hunter). Mr L. M. Gregg, of Wellington, appeared for the applicant company. In evidence, Jarlbaek said that Hertz International, a wholly owned subsidiary of th; American Express Company and the Hertz Organisation of America, operated in 8e countries, with about 10,000 cars. It also controlled another 100,000. AH profits by subsidiary companies were ploughed back into them for further expansion. Existing operators were not hurt when Hertz moved into a new area. They benefited by a boost in re.enue. Hertz’s advertising policy made the public more rental-car conscious. Both Messrs Holland and Mac Kay accused the company of violation of the Dominion schedule of rates for car hire, Mr Mac Kay calling Mr A. J. McLeavy, an Auckland member of the council of the New Zealand Rental Vehicle Proprietors’ Association, to give supporting evidence. in his submissions Mr Mac Kay said that the applicant was, under the act, not a fit or proper company to hold. a licence because of over-charging. Mr N. D. Henderson, representing the Commissioner of Transport, said the schedule was very difficult to interpret. The difficulty occurred in the weekly rates from Monday to Friday. Week-ends and holidays were excluded. Hertz operated on a flat rate .all the year round. The problem was now before the department which would strictly enforce the schedule rates. The authority reserved his decision.