Portland Restrained From Distributing Excess Power

Northern Advocate, 16 December 1938, Page 6

Portland Restrained From Distributing Excess Power

[Special to ’‘Northern Advocate’l AUCKLAND, This Day. U'NDER THE TERMS OF A JUDGMENT GIVEN IN THE SUPREME COURT TO-DAY BY MR JUSTICE FAIR, WILSON’S (N.Z.) PORTLAND CEMENT CO., LTD., HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED FROM DISTRIBUTING ELECTRIC POWER IN EXCESS OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY LICENSE.

The case was brought by the Attorney-General on the relation of the North Auckland Electric Power Board, which applied to the Court to declare that the transmission of electricity generated by steam power by the defendant company was unlawful.

According to the statement of claim, the defendant company carried on business as cement manufacturers and distributors of cement at Portland.

On July 8, 1919, a license granted by Order-in-Council six years earlier to the Dominion Cement Company was transferred to' the defendant company, and the licensee constructed and operated works- for the generation. distribution and transmission of electricity on the Wairua River,

Under the license, the Dominion Company , had been authorised to supply to the Whangarei Borough Council, and still does so.

Subsequently, the North Auckland Electric Power Board was constituted the power board of an area which included the area of supply of the defendant company.

Steam Plant Standby.

The board claimed that, though the defendant company’s license was specific, it had operated a steamdriven plant in addition to the hydroelectric plant.

The defendant company admitted that a steam plant had been operated, though stating that this was not done in excess of 40 hours a year for the purpose of distributing power to the Whangarei Borough Council, and then only in cases of emergency.

It denied that its action was unlawful, or, alternatively, that if it was unlawful, the power was distributed in such circumstances as would result in the Court refusing to grant an injunction. After traversing the facts of the case and reviewing the authorities submitted to counsel on both sides, His Honour said that it was clear from the terms of the license that the use of transmission lines was authorised only for the purpose of transmitting hydro-generated power. “It may be, however, that there is implied in the license authority to transmit power generated in other ways where it is in substitution for power which would, but for the breakdown of the plant or other emergency, be available for transmission.

“That question is a difficult one, and should not, I think, be determined in the absence of the Whangarei Borough Council. No Injunction Granted. “Moreover, it involves the question as to whether such a situation would amount to ‘specific circumstances’ which should leave the court 1o refuse to make a declaration or grant an injunction. That position may never arise, and I think, therefore, that I should refrain from deciding it in these proceedings.” His Honour then found for the plaintiffs, stating that ft was perhaps desirable to add that the defendant company had acted reasonably throughout, and that no danger to the public was caused by its use of transmission lines in the way it had. Such use had proved convenient, not merely to the defendant company, but when the hydropower was available to the Whangarei power was not available to the Whahgarei Borough Council and their consumers.

Most Efficient Use. “It would appear from the evidence before me, that it might well be granted a license to enable the most efficient use to- be made of the existing plant,” said His Honour.

Mr Justice Fair added that an important principle was at issue, however, Difficult questions of law W'ere argued and, as the defendant company had not succeeded in its contention, he would follow the usual rule and allow costs to the plaintiff. Of these, the most important was a claim for £250.

There were other disbursements. Liberty would be reserved to both parties to apply in respect of any further matter which they might think required consideration. Counsel for the plaintiff was Messrs North and Astley, and, for the defendant, Messrs Rogerson and Terry.