CASE FOR PACIFIC STEEL, LTD.

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 295, 10 September 1941, Page 5

CASE FOR PACIFIC STEEL, LTD.

Onekaka Rights Action

ADDRESS BY MR. SIM

The hearing of the Onekaka rights case was resumed in the Warden’s Court, Wellington, yesterday, before Mr. Maunsell, S.M. r l?he Crown is proceeding for forfeiture of mining privileges at Onekaka against the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., Golden Bay Proprietary, Ltd., and Pacific Steel, Ltd. Mr. H. H. Cornish, K. 0., Solicitor-General, with, Mr. C. li. Fell, is appearing for the Crown, Mr. P. B. Cooke, K.C., for the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company, Limited (in liquidation), Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C., and Mr. F. P. Kelly, for Golden Bay Proprietary, Limited, and Mr. W. J. Sim, K.C., and Mr. A. L. Hudson, for Pacific Steel, Limited.

Mr. Weston, continuing his address on behalf of Golden Bay Proprietary, Ltd., submitted that if there was any ambiguity or difficulty in interpretiug Section 13 (2) of the Iron and Steel Industries Act, the Court should lean against an interpretation that would permit an injustice being done. After referring to the purpose of the Act, Mr. Weston summed up his argument, laying particular stress on the agreement between the receivers and the Crown made in September, 1931, which, he submitted, relieved the receivers from complying with the labpur and mining clauses of the lease and other licences. Therefore, he argued, there were no grounds for forfeiture. J Case For Pacific Steel.

Mr. Sim, for Pacific Steel, dealt at some length with the nature of the proceedings instituted under the special Act, and emphasized that the Court, though purporting to be a Court of Forfeiture, was nevertheless a Court of Compensation. It was usked to decree in effect that the privileges were-of no value; and to invoke the Mining Act in the circumstances was to misapply it. In fact no decree of forfeiture was necessary, as the Crown had already taken the privileges by virtue of the Act, and the lessees in the present circumstances were thus compelled to go through the expensive steps of proceedings in the Warden’s Court and proceedings in the Compensation Court to vindicate their rights. . The case was apart from any other case of its kind under the Mining Act in the magnitude of the issues at stake, the attempted forfeiture of iron ore privileges as opposed to goldmining claims, and an attempt was being made to forfeit privileges which up to the date of the passing of the special Act were uuforfeitable. Tlie question was dealt with at length that the Warden's Court was a Court of Equity, having the wide discretionary powers of the Supreme Court with regard to the forfeiture of leases, a discretion which had been held by a House of Lords authority to be unfettered in any way. The only restrictions upon the Court’s powers were that the conclusion was to be fair to the lessee.

Counsel reviewed the facts at length relating to Pacific Steel, and emphasized that it had come into existence with the approval of the Crown for the express purpose of organizing the iron and steel industry; that it bad spent some £-1-1,000 up to the passing of the Act in the carrying out of this purpose; and that it had been thwarted only by the indecision of the Government concerning the establishment, of the industry. The Government became decisive only when it was decided that the steel industry was to be a State industry, and from that moment the further organization of the industry by Pacific Steel became impossible. The company also contended that, the Crown had taken full advantage of all the work done by Pacific Steel toward establishing the industry, without payment of any kind, and its attempt now to forfeit the privileges without payment of compensation either for the privileges or for the work done by Pacific Steel was inequitable, and disentitled it to a decree or forfeiture. The hearing will be continued today, xvhen the Solicitor-General will address the Court on behalf of the Crown.