GAS SUPPLY

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 27, 31 January 1919, Page 8

GAS SUPPLY

A BOROUGH DISPUTE

JUDGMENT FAVOURS PETONE.

Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court to-day on an originating summons, in which the Lower Hutt Borough Council asked for an order determining the following questions :—

Whether (a) the defendant corporation (Petone Borough Council) is bound to supply all the gas which the Hutt Corporation requires for use, either for public or private consumption, of a quality and under such pressure as may be sufficient for such public or private consumption, or whether (1>) irrespective of such sufficiency, the obligation of the defendent corporation is limited as regards power and pressure by an agreement dated 4th November, 1913, between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Mr. E. P. Bunny appeared for the Lower Hutt Council and Mr. B. C. Kirk for the Petone Borough.

His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Eobevt Stout) said that the duty of the Petone Corporation was to deliver gas fit for lighting the public lamps and private residences, etc. It could not be assumed that the parties contemplated that it would be necessary for the Lower Hutt Borough to erect a gasometer, or put a booster in or other machine to create the pressure. The question that arose, however, was (1) had the parties to the agreement limited the duty of the Petone Borough Council as to the pressure and quality of the gas referred to in paragraph 8 of the agreement? There was no question as to the quality of the gas. What was said about the pressure was that it was to be at least 2£ inches, except during the hours of maximum consumption, when it should be increased to four inches. There was no agreement as to maximum hours. Lately the Petone Corporation had not kept to this maximum pressure, except between 5-and 10 p.m. These might not be the hours of maximum consumption. The argument in favour of the Lower Hutt Council was that the Petone Corporation was bound to do what a company was bound to do under the Gas Supply Act. In his Honour's opinion the agreement, being express, must regulate the contract between the two boroughs, and' the Act could not be invoked for the purpose of demanding a greater pressure than was in the agreement. Nor could it be said that, though the Petone Borough was bound to' supply < gas, and that the inference was that it must be of an efficient pressure—otherwise the gas could not be said to be : supplied—the Hutt Borough could demand a greater pressure than was provided for under paragraph 8 of the agreement. The mere fact that the Petone Borough had been in the habit of supplying a greater pressure than was provided for did not enable the Lower Hutt Borough to suggest that that pressure ought to have been maintained. It was apparent, however, that there was no time fixed for the hours of maximum consumption, and that therefore the corporation would have a right to demand that the pressure should not be increased only for the five hours between 5 and 10 p.m. This question had not been specifically referred to the Court, and there was provision made for its arbitrament. That question was still open, and must be left to the arbitrator.

His Honour answered the questions as follow :—

(a) The Corporation of Petone, the defendants, -would be liable to supply gas under such pressure as may be sufficient during the maximum hours to 4 inches, and during the minimum hours to 2j inches. .

(b) That the agreement so limits the obligation of the Borough of Petone. Mr. Justice Hosking said it was admitted by Petone that the real agreement was that the pressure of 4 inches should be at the outlet, and not the inlet ; and that the clause ought to be amended accordingly. His Honour concurred with the finding of the Chief Justice, and the implication sought to be imposed was that Petone • bound itself that the pressure should be fit to give a proper supply at the point of consumption. This implication, his Honour held, was not one that the Court could make unless necessity drove it to do so. The language of the agreement in other parts of it s,ppeared to be more consistent with the notion that a supply at the pressure specified was what was contracted for, and by giving which Petone would fulfil its contract.

Tho question of costs was reserved for future argument.