G. C. BLACKLER CASE Court Dismisses Appeal By Rugby League

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31678, 14 May 1968, Page 19

G. C. BLACKLER CASE Court Dismisses Appeal By Rugby League

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON.

An appeal by the New Zealand Rugby Football league for a motion granting conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council was dismissed in the Court of Appeal yesterday.

On March 22, the Court of Appeal made a declaration to the effect that the rule of the league restricting its members from playing overseas under certain circumstances was void as being in restraint of trade.

It was against this declaration that the Rugby league proposed to make its appeal. The respondent in the case was Gary Charles Blackler. The issue which came before the Court yesterday, was whether the motion for leave filed in the Supreme Court at Wellington, on April 8, was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. This question arose because service of the motion did not occur within the 21-day period subsequent to the decision of

the Court of Appeal, contrary to the rules of Privy Council. Mr B. Cahill, for the Rugby league, said that the motion was not served within the 21day period because of the following circumstances. The motion was filed on April 8 but required the inclusion of a day of hearing in the Court of Appeal, before it could be effective for service. Such a date was not assigned by the clerk of the Supreme Court on the day of filing and was not ascertained by the solicitors for the applicant until April 10, the day upon which the storm disrupted Wellington’s communications.

Radio requests to remain off the streets and to refrain from making toll calls were complied with, said Mr Cahill.

For these reasons, he submitted, it was impossible to contact the firm in Auckland which was to effect service, either on Wednesday, April 10 or the following day, and the final day for service, Good Friday, marked the start of the Easter vacation and was accordingly also unsuitable.

Mr Cahill submitted that the Privy Council rule governing the situation could be interpreted as giving the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to act under its own rules. The Court of Appeal could, submitted Mr Cahill, waive the result of a failure to comply with the Privy Council rules.

It was submitted by Mr Cahill, that the Court should exercise that discretion and grant the motion. Mr J. G. Leggat, who appeared for Mr Blacker, opposed the granting of the motion. After the favourable decision of the Court of Appeal, his client had been permitted to play in Australia. When it became known that an appeal to the Privy Council initiated by the New Zealand Rugby league was pending, the permission had been withdrawn. Start Playing In Aust. Mr Leggat said the effect of the Court of Appeal on this occasion refusing to grant the motion to appeal and the necessity of Mr Blackler seeking recourse directly to the Privy Council, would probably be to enable Mr Blackler to play for the remainder of the season in Australia. He submitted that the Privy Council rules would not be interpreted as giving jurisdiction to the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The rules related only to the internal machinery of the Privy Council, he said.

the president of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice North, delivered the judgment of the Court approving the submissions of Mr Leggat, and refusing the application upon the ground that the motion was no longer within the jurisdic-

tion of the Court. The reasons for the Court's decision would be more fully presented in writing at a later date, said the president. The Court comprised: Mr Justice North, Mr Justice Turner and Mr Justice McGregor.