‘Fair Go’ ruled in contempt of court

Press, 6 May 1981, Page 1

‘Fair Go’ ruled in contempt of court

PA Auckland • 1 A High Court judge yesterday ruled - <-t television ’’progrartrine/bn f cornplaints made: by ' res'i- ' / dents' of. ’ Begbie -Place,- -.-i Mount Albert,- - about 'the • condition of. their homes, • i was in contempt of court. ■ j In granting an interim I injunction to stop the item t being broadcast .on ;. the * , consumer rights pro- s gramme, “Fair Go,” Mr ; ■Justice: Holland . said-.that 1 the programme purported 1 .to act in place £ court < of - law. 1 ■:. His . Honour viewed the 1 programme after - an in- ■ junction was- sought by ' : the Mount Albert City ; < Council:against theJßroad- ■ < casting Corporation of • 1 .'New Zealand. ; 1 In his oral decision, his .

Honour said; : that there were -ll - • actions-; against the. council and T-an , .in- ■ solvent' building'cbmpany -still waitipg to be “heard • inThe High-Court. . He said-that he was satk. isfied the programme prejudged many of-the issues between the residents and the council. . The programme was designed to ; enable- the plaintiffs; to .put. pressure on the council to 'satisfy their claims without - requiring the matter to go through the court process, he said.- \. .. ' “The programme - i? designed to- place pressure on: the council,,, not/ to defend its 'Claims, in - court, but to ' yield ’ to public pressure,” he said. “While • in . . part, criti-

cising the legal,/process, and the efficiency. T>F - the, •; courts- - : to. dispense,, justice, ' the . . programme/’rifaiply; •■/ aims; to pressure -the--couh-> cil 'ihtp- withdrawing'...freoni :... codrLaction.” ■ '. ■: ; .His ’ Honour said/ that the -council was; given Theopportunity to present its points view, on the-‘pro- > gramme',“thut refused on - the grounds that- the matter was the subject of . court actions. - He-said it was wrong to . place pressure-on’dny - liti- , gant in art action; awaiting . '.trial ■to present - : . his- >. defence or clairns- in the news media so the public . could determine the matter before the court hearing. .