Appeal To Be Made To Privy Council

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31983, 9 May 1969, Page 20

Appeal To Be Made To Privy Council

(New Zealand Press Associaiion) WELLINGTON, May 8. The Court of Appeal granted leave today to two Christchurch television companies to appeal against its judgment to the Privy Council.

The Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered today had dismissed the appeal of Bateman’s Television, Ltd, and Bateman’s T.V. Hire, Ltd (both in liquidation), against a judgment of Mr Justice Macarthur in the Christchurch Supreme Court on December 12, 1968, in favour of the Coleridge Finance Company, Ltd. On the dismissal of the appeal, Mr C. I. Patterson applied for Ifeave to appeal to the Privy Council. ; The Court granted leave, subject to security for the cost of the appeal being found in the sum. of $2OOO. [ln the proceedings in the Supreme Court at Christchurch, it was said on behalf of the finance companies that the debt owed by the television companies, with interest, amounted to $425,000.] The president of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice North, in his judgment said the two appellant companies were members of a group of companies having common shareholders and common directors which carried on business connected with television.

Both television companies, said Mr Justice North, experienced financial difficulties with the result that the finance company served on the television company a demand calling upon it to pay forthwith tile sum of $8704.46 and informing the television company that the demand was made 'pursuant to the Companies Act and that if the television company neglected

to pay a petition would be filed for the winding-up of the company on the grounds that it was unable to pay its debts. The debts were not paid and a petition was accordingly brought.

In the Supreme Court Mr Justice Macarthur rejected submissions made by counsel for the television companies and made orders for the compulsory winding-up of both appellant companies. Mr Justice Turner and Mr Justice McCarthy, delivered separate judgments, but both concurred with the findings of Mr Justice North.