THE LYSNAR CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 182, 29 April 1922, Page 3

THE LYSNAR CLAIM

HARBOUR BOARD’S APPEAL UPHELD PUBLIC WORKS ACT MANDATORY In the course of legal argument at the Appeal Court on Thursday it became mvident that the question of the mandatory nature of certain clauses in the Public Works Act governing local body expenditure would decide the validity or otherwise of the contract entered into between Mr. Lysnar and tho Gisborne Harbour Board. This contract specified that Lysnar was to be paid £1 per cent, upon the construction costs of a harbour at Gisborne, if his plan were adopted. The judgment of Mr. Justice Reed on a claim in tho lower Court by Lysnar for commission—which might, if the scheme had been carried out, have cost £15,000 —upheld the contract in question in its essential points, and the appeal was against that decision. After the hearing exhaustive legal argument by Mr. Myers (for the appellant board) and Mr. Burnard (for Mr. Lysnar). His Honour the Chief Justice said that the Court’s. decision was that the vital section of the Act was mandatory, and he would like to hear both sides as to costs. The Court’s decision would be given in writing. Mr. Myers stressed the point that respondent had not been the successful litigant. Mr. Justice Stringer, whose expression of opinion was endorsed by other members of the Court, said that the contract was an illegal and improper one, based on something which the board had no power to do. It would not be fitting, therefore, to throw the onus of costs entirely on the respondent. Mr. Myers asked for a clear decision as to the basis of the Court’s findings in view of tho possibility of a further appeal to the Privy Council. In view of the distance from Gisborne, he would ask for a lump sum of from £l5O to £200.* The decision of the Court was that there was nd contract, as section 57 of the Harbour Boards Act, 1908, ruled to be mandatory, had not been complied with.