AUCKLAND IMPORTERS CONTEST-PRICE ORDER

Grey River Argus, 12 October 1949, Page 3

AUCKLAND IMPORTERS CONTEST-PRICE ORDER

P.A. WELLINGTON, Oct 11. F. E. Jackson and Co., Ltd., of Auckland allege that Price Order 1001, which set the deadline for price alterations following the appreciation of the New Zealand pound last year was not validly issued by the tribunal, and to-day an action "oy them seeking a writ of certiorari to remove an order of the Price Tribunal into the Supreme Court in order to have it quashed was opened in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Hutchinson.

The statement of claim said a substantial quantity of goods had been bought by the plaintiff company prios to August 18, 1948, when the exchange rate was altered, and some of those goods remained in the plaintiff’s warehouse at all material times since.

It was alleged thta no notice war given before Price Order 1001 was issued, and that there was no public hearing before it was issued, that a public hearing had been refused and that such an order was made without jurisdiction because it contravened the principles of natural justice. “This case raises important constitutional questions relating to the jurisdiction of and the way an administrative tribunal should conduct its affairs,” said Mr North, "and also how far its actions can be dealt with by this Court. It also raises the question of influence by the Minister in charge of Price Control and the degree of his interference with the tribunal.

“Interference is no novel thing. It is a consequence of the setting up of a tribunal which has administrative duties as well as responsibility to act judicially in certain matters,” Mr North said. The three main points which were raised in the case were: 1 Whether the Price Tribunal was a statutory body exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions?

2 If th® tribunal is a judicial or quasijudicial body, whether Price Order 1001 was made in violation of the principles of natural justice? 3 Whether the price order is void because the tribunal m making it, did not comply with its statutory ob ligations?

Mr A. K. North, K.C., who, with Mr A. M. Cousins, is appearing for the plaintiff company, said that at the time when the New Zealand pound was appreciated to parity with sterling, merchants found themselves with large quantities of goods in their possession, the landed price of which included the previous 25 per cent, exchange rate. There had been a consequent time-lag before the effect of the appreciation had been felt in retail prices. Mr North said the Government was concerned at this time-lag and had asked the director of price control to investigate the position and find a way in which the appreciation ol the New Zealand pound could be reflected more rapidly by lower prices of imported goods. Quite properly the director had investigated the situation and made a report. The Plaintiff was stated to the Court to be acting on behalf of the Auckland Hardware Merchants’ Committee. . DEFENCE STATEMENT The statement of defence maintains that the tribunal was under no obligation to give notice of'its intention to issue the price order and admitted that it refused to give the question at issue a public hearing. The statement claimed that Gainor Jackson, managing director of the plaintiff company, and other hardware merchants had met a jnembei of the tribunal and that the objections raised in that interview had been taken into consideration by the tribunal before Price Order 1001 was made.

It is also claimed that the tribunal was exercising judicial and partlyadministrative functions. There had been no violation of any principle of natural justice, added the statement.

The Tribunal and the director ot price control were represented by the Solicitor-General, Mr H. E. Evans. K.C., and Mr E. A. Haughey.