DECISION RESERVED IN FAIRLIE CASE

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31678, 14 May 1968, Page 28

DECISION RESERVED IN FAIRLIE CASE

(New Zealand Press Association)

' DUNEDIN, May 13. A motion to strike out a claim for damages against the Minister of Railways (Mr Gordon) for closing the railway branchline between Fairlie and Washdyke was moved in the Dunedin Supreme Court today before Mr Justice Henry. Decision was reserved.

The motion was moved by counsel for Mr Gordon, Mr A. S. Orr, of Wellington.

The plaintiffs are Robert Bruce Shand, William Brown Trotter, N. R. King, and South Riding, Ltd, represented by Mr H. R. Gray, with him Mr D. H. Hicks. Mr Orr said the claim for damages rested on an allegation that the Minister illegally closed the railway. It was not alleged that he acted in abuse of his powers. There was no allegation of any act on the part of the Minister which had given rise tb any breach of contract or any similar act for which damages might be covered. “The claim is novel and without precedent on the basis of the alleged failure of the Minister to comply with the law. This gives rise to an action for damages,” he said.

Mr Orr said the issue raised in the proceedings was whether or not the Minister in exercising his powers to

close the branch railway line had complied with certain conditions. Counsel said there was no warrant in law for any claim that the Minister had exercised his power without complying with legal conditions.

There was no cause or act giving rise to a claim for damages and the claim for damages should be struck out.

Counsel submitted that if the Minister was in breach of provisions of the Government Railways Act and its amendments he was in breach of his legal obligations to serve the plaintiffs. “The plaintiffs say that if the Minister in closing the line acted in breach of the legal obligations under section 21 of the Government Railways Act they may sue him.” Existing Service Plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages from the Minister, Mr Gray claimed. Replying, Mr Orr said section 21 referred to by the plaintiffs was meaningful only if emphasis was given to the criterion that people were

entitled to use a service already carried on. The section was not directed at the Minister's duties, but at the rights of the public if a railway service was being lawfully carried on.