IMPORTERS’ ACTION TO QUASH ORDER FOR PRICE REDUCTION

Grey River Argus, 13 October 1949, Page 6

IMPORTERS’ ACTION TO QUASH ORDER FOR PRICE REDUCTION

WELLINGTON, Oct 12

The methods adopted by the Price Tribunal in fixing prices of goods were outlined in part before Mr Justice Hutchison, in the Supremo Court today, when a member of the tribunal, P. N. Holloway, was cross-exam-ined by Mr A. K. North K. C.

The case is that in which F. E. Jackson and Co Ltd., of Auckland, seek a writ of certiorari removing into the Supreme Court price order No 1001 with the object of quashing the order. Mr North is appearing for the plaintiff company. Mi’ Holloway said that although the Act said that public hearings should be held, it had been found in the early days of the tribunal that there was little public interest and as a result of public hearings the work had banked up. It had been decided eventually to hear those with revelant information to give the tribunal. He said the tribunal was responsible for seeing that the spirit of the Act was observed.

Witness agreed that there was no doubt that Jackson and Co and othci Auckland merchants dissociated Them selves from the Hardware Guild, from any agreement between the director of price control and the guild and also objected to the imposition of a deadline date. (Price order No 1001 fixed the deadline for retail prices on hardware goods landed in New Zealand prior to the appreciation of the Neew Zealand pound on 1948). Witness said the plaintiff company had asked for a public hearing at which evidence could be adduced. In view of the mass of information available regarding the company’s stocks and the general position, it had not been considered necessary to ’hear anvthing further. Witness admitted that the company lost its opportunity of being heard further in the matter through the action of the tribunal in issuing price order No 1001 before further correspondence could take place. Witness added that he appreciated that, leggally, the tribunal could have been restrained from its action, but did not agree that a profound mistake had been made. The tribunal was free to act as it thought fit and was not under the direction of the Minister, nor was it bound by agreements reached between the director of price control and traders, said witness In the event of controls being removed entirely from one industry by the Government then th« tribunal would acknowledge the factP.A. WELLINGTON, Oct 12. The Solicitor-General, Mr H. E. Evans, K.C., called Gainor Jackson, head of the plaintiff company for cross-examination about stock affected by the price order. Examined bv Mr North, the witness said that Mr H. L. Wise, Director of Price Control, had been most reluctant to grant plaintiff an interview with Ilic tribunal.

Mr North, in his submissions for plaintiff, said it was an accepted principle that justice not only should be done, but should also appear to be done. The only possible way of ensuring that justice would be done was by a public sitting. He said the Director of Price Control intended to negotiate where possible, and where negotiations could not be brought to a conclusion, to hold a public hearing, or hearings. He began to make some progress with the New Zealand Hardware Guild, which he apparently left was an adequately representative body. The advent of the Auckland Hardware Merchants’ Committee, however, put a spoke in the wheel. The position really required to be reviewed. It was clear that both the Director and Mr Holloway knew before negotiations with the Guild ended, that Auckland people dissociated themselves from representations by the guild, and also from any agreement that might be reached by the Guild. It was perfectly clear that the palintiff not only did not get the reply to a request for a public hearing, but that the reply was not posted till it was too late. This was an example of a delayed reply in inexcusable circumstances.

The case is expected to finish tomorrow..