POWER BOARDS’ RIGHTS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 198, 23 July 1931, Page 3

POWER BOARDS’ RIGHTS.

1 ‘AVAILABILITY” CLAUSE. Per Press Association. M , BLENHEIM, July 22. AA’hether tho Marlborough Power Board, after declining to supply a ratepayer with electricity without a guarantee that he will take a minimum quantity of £3O worth for a period of five years, can turn round and impose an availability rate on such ratepayer was a question put to tho Supreme Court to-day. The action was one in which Russell Trcgonning. of Starborough, Seddon, asked for an injunction restraining the Power Board from proceeding against him for the recovery of an alleged availability rate. His Honour said that the case was of great interest as it would have an effect all over New Zealand. He remarked that it was oppressive for a small man, but the law* had to be administered. At first sight the case presented some difficulties, hut it had been well argued and he had been able to corns to a conclusion. His Honour proceeded to review* thq facts, and stated that plaintiff claimed that he was not liable for an availability rate, firstly, because energy was not available to him at the usual tariff, and, secondly, because he claimed to have made a> separate contract in 1927 for the supply of energy at a minimum of £ls per annum as compared with £3O per annum 'now demanded as a guarantee by the board. The facts shortly were that the land where plaintiff resided was not, in the board’s early years, contiguous to the transmission lines, so that anything done in the way of collecting guarantees w*ns purely tentative. In December, 1926, plaintiff made an offer to the board to pay a minimum of £ls per annum for five years. He claimed that this amounted to a contract by him to take and by the hoard to supply electricity when it became available at his property at £ls per annum. His Honour was satisfied, however, that that was not the legal meaning of the documents. They were merely applications and had not been accepted by tl;e hoard. On the contrary, they were definitely declined, and plaintiff was notified that he could not secure a supply of electricity unless he entered into the same guarantee as his neighbours had done, which was £3O per annum. There was no doubt that energy was available to plaintiff if he were prepared to nay for it at the rates set out by the hoard. He had refused to do so, and it seemed to His Honour that the board would be travelling outside its statutory authority if it supplied him on better terms than his neighbour. His Honour found that energy w*as available to plaintiff, and that his claim to a separate oontract could not be maintained. In these circumstances there could be no legal or technical defence to the rate imposed by the board. The motion for 'an injunction would he dismissed,- with costs (£ls 15s) and disbursements.