Claim on Gubay fails

Press, 26 July 1977, Page 6

Claim on Gubay fails

PA Auckland ; An agreement between Mr Albert Gubay, the supermarket tvcoon, and a man. acting as a commission agent; to sell his businesses, has: been declared null and void; by a Supreme Court judge. ; A document allegedly sealing the agreement was de-j dared to be a nullity and the; police said afterwards that they were interested in interviewing the plaintiff, who failed to appear in court. Mr Ivor Mosley had. brought a claim against i North Island Wholesale' Groceries. Ltd. and Three Guys. Ltd. two companies formerly controlled by Mr Gubay. seeking damages of 5155.000 for alleged breach; of contract and non-payment-of fee. The case was called in the Supreme Court at I Auckland yesterday before ' Mr Justice Moller. Mr R. H. Hansen, for the; plaintiff, said his client was I not in Court and he (Mr ! l Hansen) had been unable toij contact him. His client was; aware of the date of the J hearing. Mr Hansen said he 1 had not been given an oppor- ’ : unity to prepare the case;! and he elected to be nonsuited and sought leave to|< withdraw. ; I His Honour non-suited the 1 plaintiff and granted him leave. I Mr P. B Temm. Q.C.. who < appeared with Mr D. S. Firth. . t for the defendants, said he proposed to continue on al J

counter-claim which was that Mr Mosley’s claim was to get a large sum of money by a forgery. Mr Temm said that the 'two men had signed an agreement in March 1974 that if Mr Mosley could find a buyer for Mr Gubay’s businesses he would receive 21 per cent commission on the sale price calculated on a completed sale. In April, 1975, Mr Mosley through his solicitor produced a handwritten document dated May 8, 1974. providing that Mr Mosley would receive the same commission if any of the businesses were sold and the amount was to be calculated on the price asked by the vendor, or the price offered by any prospective buyer whether accepted or not. Mr Temm said he was seeking a declaration that the second document was a forgery. In evidence. Mr Gubay said he had never ever seen the alleged agreement before.: The signature in the middle j of the document appeared tobe his but if it was. it was written before the other! handwriting. Ronald Charles Selkirk, a: chemical consultant, said the paper of that agreement hadbeen dampened then dried.' The writing had its varied: blue to grey colour from theapplication of a bleach such; as Janola. Detective Senior-Sergeant John Alexander West, a)

I police handwriting expert said Mr Gubay’s signature was unusually placed. It was the classic case of a text crowded in to allow it to be placed .in the paper space available above the signa - ture. He said that Mr Gubay’! I signature came before the ; other handwriting on the ; document. ' There was gum on botl • sides of the paper which is I not consistent with the papei I being taken from a block I pad. I It was possible, he said, to I cut from other letters signed (by Mr Gubay a portion the size of the document without getting any typewritten material at all. His Honour said that in his view the defendants had proved that the paper on which the alleged agreement was written was cut from a letter or other document with Mr Gubay’s signature on it and the context of the alleged agreement was added by somebody above and below the signature. The signature, he said, did not show Mr Gubay’s acceptance of what was written and he declared the document a nullity. His Honour reserved the question of costs. The police were interested in interviewing Mr Mosley, a police spokesman said after the case yesterday, after a complaint had been made. They had been unable to speak to him yesterday.