APPEAL ALLOWED

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 84, 8 April 1924, Page 10

APPEAL ALLOWED

IMPORTANT MEAT COMPANY CASE

DECISION ON ABATTOIRS FEES. |

A decision of importance to meat companies and local bodies controlling abattoirs was .. delivered by the Appeal Court yesterday in the appeal of the i Auckland . City Council against a deci- ;| sion ;.iiv favour-of R. and W. Hcllaby,.: Ltd., an Auckland Exporting and Stock' .Slaughtering Company. 'Ihe original ' action was brought to jecover from the' -Corporation of tiie-Gity of Auckland cer- j tain sums of money which, it was al- j leged, the Corporation, in the professed j exercise of statutory authority, had : wrongfully exacted from the company. • The main question at issue turned upon the true construction of Section 27 of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1908. Ihe company has, for many ' years, been the holder of a moat export slaughterhouse license, and in pursuance ■ of Section. 27 has paid to the Corporation large sums o£ money in respect of meat from stock slaughtered in its meat export slaughter-house, and sold in the municipal abattoir district. These payments were made at the rates fixed from time to time by the Corporation. The Chief Justice. (Sir Robert Stout) Mr. Justice Stringer, Mr. Justice Salmond, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr! Justice Adams gave considered opinions, the effect being, that the appeal was allowed, the Court holding that action for refunds could not be taken in law, but must be ■taken in form of appeal before the Minister of Agriculture. The action was, therefore, referred back to the Supremo Court for judgment according to the Ap- '! peal Court findings. j In his judgment, Mr. Justice Stringer ! stated, mter alia: "Section 27, upon the true construction of which the case depends, is ill drawn and ambiguous, and has already been the subject of consideration by the Courts in several cases, but the precise point involved in the present case viz., whether the holder of a meat export slaughter house license, on proof that he has made payments in excess o' the limits prescribed by the second pro viso, can thereupon maintain an actioi at law for recovery of such excess payments, has not hitherto been the subject oi judicial decision. The question to be considered is, what remedy is open to a person claiming the benefit of the second proviso where, as in the present case, it is established that fees in exees* of the limits imposed by. the proviso have been charged " and paid. It could-not have been intended that there should be an appeal to the Minister only m the event of the fees alone • bringing in more than the amount necessary to defray the annual cost of the abattoir. In the present case, therefore, the company had the right of appeal to the Minister, and, in my opinion, this is its only remedy, the rule being that where a Statute creates an obligation and provides a remedy, no other remedy can be adopted. In my opinion, the judgment of the Court below was wrong in holding that the company had a right of action at law for the fees collected from them in excess of the limit, imposed by the Statute. It was said in the judgment of the Court below that the remedy by appeal to the Minister wasa 'futile and empty remedy.' ' I do not think so." "A further claim was made by the company for the refund of fees which had been demanded from and paid by it in respect of meat sold ii; certain boroughs and districts which are beyond • the boundaries of the municipal abattoir district. It was admitted by the Corporation that, with regard to whole carcasses of ani mals sold in the boroughs and district, heforementioned, the company was entitled to a refund. With regard to beef, however, only portions of .carcasses o cattle beasts 'were sold within such boroughs and districts, and as to such beasts it was contended that the company was not entitled, to any refund. That seems to me. to involve as a necessary consequence that if any part of ""a beast is sold within an abattoir district ! the fee per head for such beast- must . be paid. However reasonable, therefore the proposed method of computation mav lie, the terms of the .Statute will no "t allow its .adoption. ' ■ ■. '''."' .At.the hearing Mr. .Myers,.,'K.C., and i Mr. A. H. ■ Johnstone represented the i Corporation; and Mr.-.■ Skerrett KC and Mr. R. P. Towle for the company