DREDGING CO.s’ CASE

Grey River Argus, 15 December 1943, Page 6

DREDGING CO.s’ CASE

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS CHRISTCHURCH, Dec. 14. Judgment' for the defendant company was entered by Mr Justice Northcroft, in the Supreme Court at Christchurch in the claim of British Developments (N.Z.) Ltd. for £1823 8s Id as payment for managerial and secretarial expenses allegedly- incurred in work carried out for Associated Gold Dredges (N.Z.) Ltd. Mr K. M. Gresson appeared for British Developments, and Mr C. S. Thomas for Associated Gold Dredges. British Developments promoted mining enterprises by carrying out all work up to the stage when the dredge was in working order. The directorates of the two companies were interlocking. Walter James Watkins, managing-director of British Developments, was also manag-ing-director of Associated Gold Dredges from the company’s inception.

Mr Gresson said that the only way to treat the money paid to Watkins as managing-diredtor of Associated Gold Dredges was as an added remuneration paid to British Developments for their services. There was a division of the total fee, but in essence it was all paid to British Developments. Bicknell and Holland, accountants, did not show the payments made were too much. British Developments had had only £452 more than Bicknell thought right. Both the accountants had not taken into account technical services rendered by the company. The Greymouth account was really the kernel. There were three competing claims—the plaintiff’s claim was computed on what in fact the expenses had been. The estimates of both Bicknell and Holland ignored the stress and immensity of the work done in the period under consideration. The defendants had refused to discuss the claim and no assistance whatever had been given by their chairman of directors. Commenting on evidence given by Watkins, His Honour said that he had to entertain very grave doubts about many statements made by him. He had been an unsatisfactory witness. There were certain benefits which' the plaintiffs had enjoyed, which had to be taken into account besides the mere conventional reward of work done. The plaintiff company, because of its own special interests, might be disposed to undertake tasks for the defendants at rates which were lower than ordinary ones. “I entertain some doubt whether the skill of the plaintiff company’s employees is entitled to the special commendation placed on it,” said His Honour. It was important to notice that the total fees were apparently regarded as sufficient and therefore reasonable. The plaintiff company, until the severance occurred did not render charges for duties performed, and there was no reference to them in the accounts of their company. Th e matter did not turn so much on management as on secretarial work. It appeared that the plaintiff company expected payment for branch office accommodation as well as head office accommodation. It was doubtful whether the plaintiff company was entitled to recover expenses incurred at Greymouth. The sum. of £4802 was as much as could be said to be fairly payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had been paid £4958, and were not entitled to recover th e amount claimed or any amount at all. Judgment would accordingly be entered for the defendants Costs were allowed as on a claim for £1823 8s Id, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to be settled by the Registrar. Two extra days were allowed at 15 guineas a day, discovery fee at 10 guineas and inspection of plaintiffs’ documents at £7 7s.