Decision reserved on injunction

Press, 25 May 1984, Page 7

Decision reserved on injunction

An application to have the interim injunction of January 6. 1984. restricting the use of part, of the Shotover River to Shotover Gorge Jetboats, Ltd, lifted on or. the ground that the Gazette notice had since been held to be invalid, was heard by Mr Justice Roper in the High Court yesterday. His Honour reserved his decision. The validity of a Ministerial decision limiting jet boat excursions to a single

operator between Tuckers Beach and the Edith Cavill Bridge on the ground of safety has been the subject of a series of legal challenges which began last year. Mr Justice Roper held earlier this year that the notice issued by the Minister of Transport, Mr Gair, last year ordering Marine Enterprises, Ltd, to stop running jet boat excursions on that part of the river was invalid. Mr A. J. Forbes for the

Lakes District Waterways Authority, said that the authority acknowledged that the present situation could not continue and a local bill had been drafted to overcome the problem of control. It would be sponsored by the member of Parliament for Otago, Mr W. E. Cooper. The bill would be introduced into Parliament in July and would vest statutory control of the river in the authority, Mr Forbes said.

Mr T. J. Shiels, of Dunedin, appeared for Marine Enterprises, Ltd, which sought the lifting of the injunction, and Richard Gerald Charles Rout, a director of that company; Mr P. A. Black, of Wellington, for Shotover Gorge Jetbeats, Ltd; and Mr W. R. Flaus, of Wellington, for the Attorney-General. Mr Shiels asked for the injunction to be dissolved because at all times the Waterways Authority had lacked the necessary stand-

ing to obtain the injunction. It had been granted to restrain alleged breaches of a Gazette notice which had since been held to be invalid. Messrs Forbes and Black submitted that control of the river was held under the authority of a Gazette notice issued before the one which was held to be invalid by Mr Justice Roper. ’ Interim authority was required because of the history of non-compliance on the’ assumption that the injunction would be lifted.