Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CROWN SUIT FAILS

BREACH OF AGREEMENT

DECISION FOR COMPANIES

ONEKAKA RIGHTS

CP.A.)

NELSON, October 7,

Decision in favour of the companies concerned in the suit by the Crown for forfeiture of mining privileges at Onekaka was' given by the warden, Mr. T. E. Maunsell, in a long reserved decision delivered today. The companies were the Onekaka Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., Golden Bay Proprietary, Ltd., and Pacific Steel, Ltd.

To the first question of whether the mining privileges or any of them were on the day immediately preceding the commencement of the Iron and Steel Industry Act, March 14, 1937, liable to forfeiture, the warden answered that they were so liable, but they would not in. fact have been forfeited if appropriate proceedings for their forfeiture had been taken. In his opinion the Crown did commit a breach of the agreement made in 1931 by the Government then in power by preventing any chance of a sale to Pacific Steel, Ltd., and, accordingly, a strong equity would be raised against plaintiff if an officer of the Crown had commenced a suit for forfeiture on March 14, 1937, and accordingly forfeiture would not have been decreed.

The warden added that he could find nothing justifying a sudden termination of negotiations with Pacific Steel, Ltd. It was common ground that Pacific. Steel, Ltd., which kept on obtaining successive options to purchase at considerable expense, were always willing to purchase and establish an iron and steel works industry if the required finance could be raised. There was no evidence that at any time the Crown through its Ministers or executive officers, gave any encouragement to this company to carry out the sale and purchase. Various proposals were pressed by Pacific Steel from time to time in reference to the proposed transaction, but they were successively declined.

■ Representations and proposals were made on behalf ot-Pacific Steel, Ltd., to the Ministers of the present Govern- • xnent from the time it came into power right down to the passing of the Iron and Steel Industry Act, 1937. At no time did any Minister indicate the terms upon which it would permit the establishment of the industry by private enterprise, and so permit the receivers to realise their assets.

At the hearing, which lasted 16 sitting days, the Solicitor-General, Mr. H. H. Cornish, K.C., with him Mr. C. R. Fell, appeared for the Crown; Mr. P. B. Cooke, K.C., with him Mr. M. C. Cheek, for Onekaka Iron and Steel; Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C., with him Mr. F. P. Kelly, for Golden Bay Proprietary; and Mr, W. J. Sim, K.C., with him Mr. A. L. Hudson, for Pacific Steel.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19411008.2.21

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 86, 8 October 1941, Page 5

Word Count
443

CROWN SUIT FAILS Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 86, 8 October 1941, Page 5

CROWN SUIT FAILS Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 86, 8 October 1941, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert