Court rules for Mr Rush

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33778, 26 February 1975, Page 1

Court rules for Mr Rush

(N Z. Press Association) INVERCARGILL, February 25. Mr Stockton Rush, governing director of Takaro Properties, Ltd, has won another battle — a Court of Appeal decision in his favour — but has still lost his “war.”

Although the Court of Appeal has dsimissed an appeal by the Government and the Reserve Bank against a Supreme Court decision Which ordered them to reconsider Mr Rush’s application to sell shares overseas, this will not stop the sale of all disposable assets of Takaro Lodge, near Te Anau. The three-day auction of

(the assets will begin on i Thursday. ' Decisions by the Prime i Minister. Wallace Edward i Rowling, when Minister of Finance and the Reserve Bank refusing consent to the issue by Takaro Properties of 80,000 $1 ordinary shares and 120.000 $1 con-cumulative preference shares to Mitsubishi Rayon Corporation of Japan were held invalid, the Court of Appeal held in a judgment today. The court dismissed an appeal by Mr Rowling (first appelant) and the bank (second appelant) against a Supreme Court ruling by the Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) that the decisions were invalid.

The court comprised Sir; Thaddeus McCarthy (presi-i dent), Mr Justice Woodhouse. I and Mr Justice Quilljam. Mr Rush this afternoon described the decision as a “pyrrhic victory.” "There is no question that justice has been done, and I am extremely pleased,” he said. “But on the eve of the sale of all removeable assets at the lodge, it is a great pity that the Government’s illegal action has resulted in the virtual destruction of the resort. Right of appeal "Although Mr Rowling has the right of appeal to the Privy Council in London, I certainly think the satisfaction with New Zealand justice that he recently expressed over the Sutch case would lead him to abide by the decision of the highest court in his own country,” Mr Rush said. The Government’s action and the delays it had caused had resulted in the collapse of an investment group which would have allowed the lodge to reopen and expand its facilities, he said. He would like to think that the significance of the Government’s action

[associated with the sale of 'the “heart” of Takaro Lodge would not be lost on the average New Zealander. The Government’s appeal was based on the argument that the powers of a Minister were unfettered. Mr Rush said.

“The principle of this is terrifying — and what the Judicature Amendment Act, 11972, through which I orig- | inally appealed, has done is l to allow the citizen in thei absence of a constitution tn | New Zealand the right to ■ challenge this power,” he said. Principle “If 1 have any .satisfaction.! lil is in the principle involved;! ' and I can only hope that■ when justice is done, others I will class their rights under law.” The proceedings in the Court of Appeal stemmed from last vear when Mr Rush applied to sell 24.2 per cent of the shares in his company to Mitsubishi. Overseas control in New Zealand is set at 25 per cent. When the application was refused, Mr Rush challenged the refusal in the Supreme Court, where Sir Richard Wild in August ordered the bank and Mr Rowling to reconsider the application “according to law.” By selling the shares for $200,000, Takaro Lodge would have been reopened; and an investment group in New Zealand was prepared to invest another $700,000 for further development, including a world championship golf course. However, when the Gov-| ernment appealed, the inves-i tors postponed their investment because the world economic situation had in the meantime changed. “There is irony in the fact that the Court decision and the auction at Takaro should come in the same week,” said the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr Taiboys), inj whose electorate of Wallace Takaro Lodge lies. “There will be a great deal of sympathy for Mr Rush.” he said. “The decision confirms that the Minister was guided by prejudices rather than the law. In spite of the fact that the court has decided against the Minister, it appears that his prejudices wall triumph. "The original Ministerial decision and the ensuing legal

argument have meant so ’ much delay that a sale of the I chattels is apparently neces-l sary, and a most imaginative, project — an example of’ planning to blend with the] environment — is conse-| quently threatened.” I