LICENSING AUTHORITY

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 May 1939, Page 3

LICENSING AUTHORITY

STATEMENTS NOT PRIVILEGED

[I’EK PRESS ASSOCIATION.J

HAMILTON, May 15

The opinion that, the proceedings of a Transport Licensing Authority have not the status of a Court of law. and that in certain circumstances statements made at a sitting of the authority tiro not privileged, was expressed by Mr. S. L. Patterson. S.M.. in a reserved judgment, given in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court. The judgment, related to a case heard before him on December 12 last, when Richard Claude Evans Kendall. cartage contractor. Hamilton, claimed £lOO damages from Lawrence Gerard Mathews, secretary of Hie Auckland Drivers' Union for slander. Mr. W. .1. King, instructed by Mr. A. G. Ward, appeared lor the plaintiff, and Mr. F. IT. Haigh for the defendant.

'Hie S.M. held that the Transport. Licensing Authority was an administrative and not. a judicial body, and that: its sittings were not occasions of qualified privilege, lie also found that the statements made by defendant. constituted slander, and he awarded plaintiff £2O damages, with costs, solicitors’ fees, and witnesses’ expenses.

In. his judgment, the S.M. said that on October 13 last. plaintiff appeared before the No. 1 Transport. Licensing Authority at Hamilton in support of an application for an amendment to his carrying license. Plaintiff alleged that during the sitting the defendant made use of the following words: “The operator has made serious breaches of the award, and is not. complying with the conditions of his license. Kendall is not. a lit. person to have a license, because of the way he treats his men. We have had a lot. of difficulty in the past with respect to this particular operator. We have proof that th< employees have handed back, under coercion. their back pay.” Proceeding, Hie S.M. said the plaintill’ had brought the present action, in which he alleged that the defendant's words constituted slander. The defendant denied that, the used all the expressions charged. Hi* said that when the Licensing Authority asked if there were any objections to the amendment, asked for. he said he desired to oppose the application on the grounds that the applicant was not observing the terms of the award, or of his license. Defendant denied that he said that Kendall was not lit to hold a license or that he said that Kendall did not treat his men correctly. He admitted that he said that money which had been collected by I het Labour Department mi behalf of Ihe workers had been handed back to plaintiff under coercion. Under cross-examination, he admitted that the union had had trouble with plaintiff in the past.

The S.M. said it was not easy to gel a clear anti connected account of what was said, which was probably due to the fact that defendan'ts words and actions caused quite a stir in the proceedings. As one- witness put it, there was quite a hubbub. He was satisfied, from the evidence, however, that it was substantially proved that the words charged were- used. Malice was further evidenced by defendant’s conduct, the S.M. added. If defendant had a genuine- complaint, he could have made it formally to the authority under the appropriate section. instead, he waited for a public meeting, and his attitude was hostile and vindictive. Malice, was to be strongly inferred from the violent and intemperate words used, and their irrelevance to the application before the authority.