S.O.S. MOTORS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 31, 6 August 1934, Page 10

S.O.S. MOTORS

AUTHORITY UPHELD

RELICENSING OPPOSED

"LAW PREVENTS INJUSTICE"

"Happily the law as I believc.it to be is plain enough and strong enough to prevent such an injustice; I prefer to ■ avoid, on account of their technical inaccuracy, any of the more foreeful expressions of colloquial parlance," said his Honour the Chief Justice in a joint judgment delivered in the Supreme.Court this morning in,the separate cas.es of Newman. 8r05.,. Ltd., of Nelson, plaintiff, and Jenkins Motor Services, Ltd.,. plaintiff, I against. J. A. C. Allum, as central licensing authity, S.O.S. Motors, Limited (in liquidation), and others. ■ . The plaintiffs sought to quash a decision of t-tie licensing authority under the Transport Licensing Acts, renewing the licences of S.O.S. Motors, Ltd., and sought a writ ordering the authority to hear applications of plaintiffs. The grounds urged by. the plaintiffs were:— '...-' 1. That the , application .of S.O.S. should have been dismissed for.want of prosecution. . :' 2. That the authority acted on extraneous considerations and/on evidence he was not entitled to take into account. 3. That the decision in granting the renewal to S.O.S. Motors amounted to aii acquiescence in a breach of the Act. '...■ /■ ■ I "An examination of the provisions of the statute," said' his Honour, "shows 'in my opinion that these grounds arc not well founded;" An interim, injunction of the Court restraining the Licensing Authority from | dealing- with an application for transfer of the S.O.S/Motors licence to the Government Railways Board, was dissolved by the Court. LIQUIDATOR'S INACTIVITY. "During the hearing of the petition for the , winding-up of- 5.0.5.. Motors, Ltd., and on May 19, when an order was made, it was assumed that the official liquidator would take any necessary steps to continue the. business of the- company. in conjunction with the receiver. , ... "Fpr some unexplained reaso.n ' the official liquidator, seems to have remained, inactive, and it is this very inactivity upon which the plaintiffs in the present actions, largely rely. I assume that it. is not too late for the liquidator to make any necessary application now if he! has not alreadv made it. .'.•.•-. ' , "preventing honest result? "On behalf of the two plaintiff companies it was cheerfully admitted, in answev to a question from the Court, that hy every standard of commercial honesty the debenture-holders of S.O.S. Motovj?, Ltd., • are entitled to the benefit of the transport licence held by that company and that the deben-ture-holder's can obtain such benefit, only by a ■, grant. .to S.O.S. Motors, Ltd., of a renewal of the licence. But the-jcase for the two plaintiff companies is that they can, by-the' application of technical legal principles, prevent the attainment of this honost. result, and obtain'the licence for their own benefit. .... "I sny 'for. their own bonofit' because (whatever may hava boon' their intentions at tho times whon they made their respective applications for a licence), it was frankly admitted at the Bar that thiy are now working in unison, from which'l gather that it is immaterial which, of them obtains a licence so long as one of Ihpm can obtain.it. and that .they have their own arrangements for its ownership or working for their domraon benefit. Happily tho law as I believe il to be is plain enough and-strong enough to prevent such an injustice—l prefer to avoid, on acount of their technical inaccuracy, anv of the morn forceful expressions of colloquial parlance. "ROOM FOR ONLY ONE SERVICE." "Before going further I ought to say that in the • proceedings before the Licensing Authority and also in this court it was conceded by all parties that there was! room for only one service between Wanganui and Wellington, that only one could be authorised, and that therefore of the three applications (namely the application made on behalf of S.O.S. Motors, Ltd., for a renewal of its licence and the respective applications by the Newman Company and the Jfcnkins Company for a new licence) two of them must fall. "The application for renewal was made on February 12, 1934, in tho name and on behalf of the company by Mr. Gatley, the receiver for the debenture holders, who had been appointed to that office in November, 1933. "It is- admitted, that Mr. Gatley was entitled to make the application and to make it in the name and on behalf of the S.O.S. Motors., Ltd. It is also admitted that if tho application had been dealt with prior to the windiugup order of May 19 a grant of renewal of the licence: could and would have been .made and could not possibly have been successfully attacked. FIRST COMPLAINT. , "The first complaint now made on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the Licensing Authority, acted . wrongly in hearing'each application arid reserving his decision on each until he had heard all. The contention is that the Act required the Licensing Authority to hear and of the first'application received by him before considering the second, the second before the third, and' so on. In my opinion this complaint- is unreliable. The matter is one of procedure. ' ' '"It seems to me,' seeing that only one service' r-ouM be authorised, the Licensing Authority's procedure was sensible and proper. ' I'venture to think that'if he' had acted otherwise and heard''first find granted the S.O.S. Company's ■ application.: and ■ then (th'evc beins? nothi'nsr further to consider) refused the other npnlicntinns, the present plaintiffs would have been the first to protest. "During the prgument I asked th« question , of. counsel for , the plaintiff companies whether, if the sittings had been attended on June 6, 7, and 8 by the liquidator or some one expressly appointed and authorised by him, and the Licensing Authority had . frranted the renewal, such a grant could have been attacked by tho plaintiff companies,and counsel admitted'that it could not. "Mr. Baldwin contends that that admission is, properlv. made and c oncludes the matter, and I .agree with him: for, if that is. the position, then there' was a valid application made to the Licensing .Authority, before the expiration of the licence and the Licensing Authority had jurisdiction to grant a renewal, . and it was for him to decide On matters of both law'aud fact." Judgment was given' for the defendants. .■; ,'•■:' . . Mr. R; E; Harding and' Mr. ■C. C. Marsack appeared for the separate plaintiff's, and Mr. Baldwin and Mr. M. Abraham for the defendants.