DAIRY CONTROL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 3 June 1926, Page 5

DAIRY CONTROL

POWERS OF THE BOARD.

SUPREME COURT’S DECISION.

TEXT OF JUDGMENT.

(BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, June 2.

The reserved decision of the Supreme Court, announced to-day, declines to give a -declaratory judgment oil the questions put by the Dairy Proprietary Association Incorporated and the Waitaki Dairy 1 Company, Ltd., in regard to the powers, of the- New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board. The court consisted of their Honours the Chief Justice- and Mr Justice Reed.

The judgment delivered by the Chief Justice .stated, inter alia-: “The material placed before us is meagre, but it appears to be oommon ground that after the issue of an originating summons the Board, about May 27, 1926, passed a resolution that it should assume control over the export- of dairy produce a.s from midnight on August 31, 1926. The policy of the Board in taking this absolute control has naturally been the subject of considerable controversy. Many (if not all) of the owners of proprietary factories and brokejfc and merchants, exporters of dairy produce, are opposed- to control. Co-operative companies (which are either directly or indirectly the largest exporters of produce), although in the main favourable to control, are not unanimous. It is asked whether the effect of the resolution was that all daily produce manufactured and owned by the plaintiffs then in existence or thereafter to come iuto existence passed without further act of the Board under its absolute control. It is not to be limited to the produce of plaintiffs, but it is clear that it was intended to relate to the produce of all proprietary companies. “All the other questions relate to produce generally, and it is considered that if the question was answered in the affirmative it is decided that Court should answer ' th© other ifuestjons stated in the summons. In this event it would be necessary for the Court to determine questions which traverse the whole operative powers of the statute, many of which relate to detailed machinery by which the Board may put into operation such powers of oontrol as it may be held to possess. THE COURT'S DECISION.

“It is clear that the Court has discretion as to giving or making a declatory judgment or order, and may on any grounds which it deems -sufficient refuse to give or make any such judgment or order. The present cas© is not an action for a declaratory judgment, but- is an -application under Section. 3 of tTie> Act, for. a- declaratory judj^rrbeiit; determining a question or questions as to the construction of a statute. Even when a. declaratory judgement has been sought in an action and not by an originating summons discretion to exercise jurisdiction has been exercised with gerat caution. , In- the present case it is not disguised that the object of the summons i -sto obtain a judicial opinion as to the general powers of the Board. Nothing short of that will suit the purposes of the plaintiffs. “No concrete facts have been p'aoed before us to show that a- question of right has arisen between- either of the and the Board as to specific produce intended to be exported. The reason, of course, is that the parties seek an abstract opinion in the nature of advice as to the interpretations of the whole statute. We are satisfied that the Court ought not to place itself (as it is inivted to do) practically in the position of counsel advising the owners of the proprietary factories or exporters of dairy produce upon thq interpreattion of the statute. A GRAVE OBJECTION.

“Tlie application lias the grave objection that the Cburt, if it granted it, would be compelled to define the statutory powers in the abstract without knowledge of the facts and circumstances under which such powers might be exercised and without any certitude that many of the powers about which the questions are asked will ever bo exercised. Moreover, if the Court were to yield to the application it might be called upon to give an anticipatory interpretation of many kinds of documents such as deeds, wills, memoranda and articles of association, by-laws of local authorities, and regulations made by the Governor-in-Gouncil. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are not the onlj' persons, nor even the most numerous body of persons, interested in the questions raised as to tlie interpretation of the Act. The co-operative factories and the suppliers to the co-operative factories are vitally interested in the questions. “If the proprietary companies can export their produce it affects the efficiency of control and directly affects all the co-operative and other factories who are subject to control. It is clear, therefore, that all factories who favour absolute control of their supplies are interested in the questions asked to be determined. If they are not made parties to proceedings they will not be bound by our determination To render an order determining the questions asked) of any value all interested parties would, require to be joined. In the face of the numerous conflicting interests this would be a most inconvenient proceedinS‘ COURT SHOULD REFUSE.

“It has been’ held that the Court ought not on any originating summons to decide a question, of. construction which, whichever way it was decided, did not necessarily, put an end to litigation. On the whole, therefore, we think that the Court in its discretion should refuse to answer these questions. ‘ 'Our decision places no real difficulty in the plaintiffs’ way. They can obtain a decision of the Cburt upon any action contemplated by the Board which they claim' to contravene thenrights in an action claiming a declination of right and for an injunction. They cannot, however, in such an action as the present obtain the opinion of tlie Court on the . interpretation of substantially all the provisions of the statute. i

“The application for directions as to service may stand over, in order that the parties may, if so advised, take the matter to a higher Court. As all the parties desired the Court to determine the questions raised by the originating summons we do not allow any costs.”