ONEKAKA RIGHTS ACTION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 76, 10 September 1941, Page 3

ONEKAKA RIGHTS ACTION

CASE FOR PACIFIC STEEL, LIMITED ADDRESS BY MR SIM The hearing jjf the Onekaka rights case was resumed in the Warden's . Court, Wellington, yesterday, before Mr T. E. Maunsoli, S.M. The Crown is proceeding for forfeiture of mining privileges at Onekaka Company, Ltd., Golden Bay Proprie tary. Ltd., and Pacific Steel. Ltd. Mr 11. H. Cornish, K.C., Solicitor-General.' with Mr C. R. Fell, is appearing I'm- the Crown, Mr P. B. Cooke. K.C., for the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company. L'mited (in liquidation ), Mr C. 11. We ton, K.C., and Mr F. P. Kelly, for Gol- . den Bay Proprietary, Limited, and Mi W. J. Sim, K.C., and Mr A. L. Hudson for Pacific Steel. Limited. Mr Weston, continuing In adUre-. • on behalf of Golden Bay Proprietary. : 1 Id., submitted that if there va- any 1 j .‘.mbiguily or difficulty in interpret :ng ; ( j Section 14 i2> of the Iron and Steel In | i 1 ('u.slries Act, the Court should lean w 1 against an interpretation that would ; i permit an injustice being done After , inferring to the purpose of the Act. Mr I j Weston summed up his argument, lay- j | im* particular stress on the agreement * ! between (lie receivers and the Crown ( made in September. 1921, which, he i submitted, relieved the receivers from j complying with the labour and mining t Clauses of the lease and other licenses. Therefore, he argued, there wi re no : grounds for forfeiture. CASE FOR PACIFIC STEEL. j ! Mr Sim, for Pacific Steel, dealt at , ! some length with the nature of the pro- ( ! ceedings instituted under the special t 1 Act, and emphasised that the Court. j though purporting to be a Court of | | Forfeiture, was nevertheless a Court j ! ('f Compensation. IL was asked to de- 1 cree in effect that the privileges were ( of no value; and to invoke the Mining j, Act in the circumstances was to mis- ( apply it. In fact no decree of forfei- < ! tore was necessary, as the Crown had already taken the privileges by virtue h of the Act, and the lessees in the pres- ; j ent circumstances were thus compelled j lo go through the expensive steps of L proceedings in the Warden’s Court and |- proceedings in the Compensation . j Court to vindicate their rights, j The case was apart from any other , lease of its kind under the Mining Act , ! in the magnitude of the issues at stake, . | tlie- attempted forfeiture of iron ore : privileges as opposed to goldmining • j claims, and an attempt was being made ; Ii to forfeit privileges which up to the l I j date of the passing of the special Act ; ! were unforfeitable. The question was , j dealt with at length that the Warden's I Court was a Court of Equity, having i the wide discretionary powers of the | Supreme Court with regard to the for- < •feiture of leases, a discretion which 1 had been held by a House of Lords i authority to be unfettered in any way. 1 The only restrictions upon the Court’s j powers were that the conclusion was to ! be fair to the lessee. Counsel reviewed the facts at length j ’! relating to Pacific Steel, and emphasis- J i eel that it had come into existence with j i 1 ho approval of the Crown for the ex- ; ' press purpose of organising the iron i and steel industry; that it had spent ; some L 44,000 up to the passing of the } : Act in the carrying out of this purpose; j j and that it had been thwarted only} Iby the indecision of the Government j • concerning the establishment of the in- j i dustry. The Government became de- , j cisive only when it was decided that j j the steel industry was to be a State in— j ! dustry. and from that moment the fur- I - Ither organisation of the industry by j Pacific Steel became impossible. The : I company also contended that the j ' j Crown had taken full advantage of all j the work done by Pacific Steel toward establishing the industry, without pay- |! ment of any kind, and its attempt now j to forfeit the privileges without puy--1 ment of compensation either for Hie j privileges or for the work done by ' i Pacific Steel was inequitable, and dis- : ! entitled it to a decree or forfeiture. , I The hearing will be continued to- J i day, when the Solicitor-General will ■ I address the Court on behalf of the | Crown. — -