GISBORNE HARBOUR PLANS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 107, 2 November 1923, Page 5

GISBORNE HARBOUR PLANS

LEAVE GRANTED TO APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL .

Judgment has been given by the Court of Appeal in the case of the Gisborne Harbour Board (appellants) and George Henry Lysnar (respondent), in which a motion for provisional leave to apply to the Privy Council was applied for by the ' respondent. "In, my opinion," stated Mr. Jus r tice Hosking, "an appeal lies as of right in this case. The judgment obtained by the respondent in the Supreme Court gave him /the right to a perpetual injunction restraining the board from, inter alia, publishing in any form his idea or scheme communicated by him by means of plans and descriptions to the board on the 28th May, 1917, including the plans, drawings, or sketches prepared by Mr. Reynolds. In my reasons for the decision on the appeal I have shown that this idea or scheme includes as a vital part of it the diversion of the Turanganui River to the west—a scheme embodied in Mr. Reynolds's plans which the board have adopted or desire to adopt and with regard to which they have already incurred expenditure. Indeed, the evidence is to the effect that it is only by a diversion of the river in a westerly direction that the best and most effective harbour can be made. It is obvious from the evidence given at the trial that the right to prevent the use of the scheme by the board is worth more to the respondent than £500, and if the judgment of the Supreme Court is right that evidence shows that it would pay the boavd to give more than that sum for liberty of action. Indeed, if the judgment of the Supreme Court be-restored the respondent has the destinies of the port in his hands." The judgment from which the Tespondent sought to be relieved was that of the Appeal Court depriving hint of the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment under which he was in substance granted a monopoly of the idea in question. Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Salmond agreed with-Mr. Justice Hosking that conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council should be granted.to the respondent, but the Chief Justice dissented, holding that there was no power to grant the appeal. At the hearing Mr;' C. H. Treadwell appeared for.Lysnar, and the Gisborne Harbour Board was represented by Mr. M. Myers, K. C., with him Mr. C. B. Buxton. j •