Adjournment in rugby case

Press, 2 July 1985, Page 2

Adjournment in rugby case

PA Wellington An application by the New Zealand Rugby Union for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was a precautionary measure, a full Bench of the Court of Appeal heard yesterday. Counsel for the Rugby Union, Mr Douglas White, said a motion seeking conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council was not intended to delay next week’s High Court trial in which an injunction is being sought to prevent the All Blacks touring South Africa. The Court, comprising Mr Justice Cooke (presiding), Mr Justice Richardson, Mr Justice McMullin, Mr Justice Somers and Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, granted an application by Mr White to have the motion adjourned.

Mr White said it was not the intention of the Rugby Union to seek to delay the trial set down for July 8 in the High Court in Welling-

ton. The Rugby Union accepted that even if leave was granted to appeal to the Privy Council, no appeal could be heard before the All Blacks were due to depart for South Africa. Rule 4 of the Privy Council rules required notice of appeal within 21 days of judgment and that would have expired during the trial.

Two Auckland lawyers, Patrick Thomas Finnigan and Philip James Recordon, began an action in the High Court on May 20 challenging the decision of the Rugby Union’s council to accept an invitation to send the All Blacks to South Africa.

They issued a writ of summons against the chairman, Mr Cecil Blazey, and all the councillors and sought an injunction. The Chief Justice, Sir Ronald Davison, struck out the proceedings on the application of the Rugby

Union before the matter even proceeded to trial. Messrs Finnigan and Recordon took the decision of the Chief Justice to the Court of Appeal. The appeal succeeded in part, the Court holding that the Rugby Union’s council was the correct body to make the decision on the tour but that the issue should proceed to trial on the ground that it was against the objects of the union in promoting, fostering and developing the game of rugby in New Zealand. The Court held that Messrs Finnigan and Recordon did have legal standing to bring the action against the Rugby Union. The Union then applied to appeal to the Privy Council on the question of the plaintiffs’ legal standing. The motion to seek leave to appeal to the Privy Council was to be heard yesterday and Mr White sought an

adjournment of it. Mr White said that the criteria to appeal to the Privy Council met that laid down in rule 2 in that it was a question of general or public importance and the case marked a development in the law of considerable importance.

the decision would have wide implications for other organisations, not only sport, he said. The adjournment was sought so that the matter could be raised if necessary after the trial.

Mr Ted Thomas, Q.C., for Messrs Finnigan and Recordon, said in reply that he regarded it as unsatisfactory that the motion - had been filed and remained afoot during the course of the trial. He said it seemed to him that it had been filed perhaps out of an excessive abundance of caution.

Messrs Finnigan and Recordon had not sought to

evade an early fixture in the High Court as it was readily apparent there was a large amount of work to be done. It just would not have been possible for the trial to proceed on July 1. Mr Justice Cooke said in delivering the judgment of lhe Court that the adjournment was sought primarily as a precaution in the case the plaintiffs succeeded at trial and an injuction was granted against the Rugby Union. As an adjournment of the motion seeking leave to appeal to the Privy Council would not prejudice either side, the Court was prepared to grant it as long as it was agreed that when the trial proceeded the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine the issue on its merits was in no way affected. It was adjourned sine die to be brought on within three days notice.