PLANS FOR A HARBOUR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18077, 29 April 1922, Page 10

PLANS FOR A HARBOUR.

THE GISBORNE DISPUTE. MR. LYSNAR'S CONTRACT. [ HELD TO BE INVALID. [BI TELEGRAPH.--PRESS ASSOCIATION.] } WELLINGTON. Friday. 5 The Court of Appeal heard argument c yesterday in the case of the Gisborne Harbour Board versus George Henry Lysnar, an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Reed in October of lasb year. The c dispute between the parties arose in con- l nection with the question as to the validity and interpretation of •» certain t document executed by the parties in May, { 1917. According to this document t Lysnar, who claimed to be possessed of t a novel idea for the construction of a i harbour for Gisborne, agreed to disclose , the same to bhe Harbour Board in con- j sideration of bis receiving not less than 1 per cent, of the cost of carrying out such , works. It was a condition of the agree- I ment that Lysnar's scheme must not have | beer previously placed before the board. Lysnar disclosed his idea to the board, t which then applied bo the Supreme .Court ( by way of originating summons to deter- , nine the following questions: — (1) I Whether the document signed by the parties complied with the requirements ol or constituted a contract within tie terms ol I the Harbours Act; (2) whether, if the answer to the above question wasin tne I affirmative, the document wa* binding on the board for all time; (3) wheuher the board could pay Lysnar any; sum greater I than the 1 per cent, of the total coat referred to in the document. Mr. Justice , Reed answered question one in the affirmative, and questions two and three in tne ; negative, and from this judgment Uie Harbour Board appealed. After Mr. i Justice Reed had given his judgment the , Harbour Board brought an action against , Lysnar in order to have the matter decided m some comprehensive way, claiming a declaratory judgment that tne document was not a contract intra vires. The board also claimed that in auvj caae Lysnar's idea was not novel, and further that the board had not adopted any scheme or idea of Lysnar's. This action was removed into the Court of Appeal, , and it was decided by the Court to hear both appeal and the case removed 8r. e Myers, for the Harbour Board, said that if Lysnar's claim was upheld he would be entitled to payment from the Harbour Board of the sum of fiW.OWLysnar claimed that the board had adopted a schemo for a harbour for gisborne placed before it by an engineer, Leslie H. Reynolds. Lysnar said this scheme «as substantially the one which ho himself had placed before the board. Mr. Myerß contended that there was nothing in the Harbours Act giving a Harbour Board power to expend corporate funds in the purchase of a mere scheme or idea. Continuing, he dealt with various sections of the Harbours Act, 1908. This contract lie contended, was not of a type into which a Harbour Board was empowered by Statute to enter. Section 57 of the Harbours Act made a "public tender" necessary in the case of any work undertaken by a board. There had been no public tender in connection with the agreement entered into with Lysnar and the scheme which he submitted to the Harbour Board. The Court at this stage indicated that it desired to hea r Mr. Burnard (for I.ysoar) on the question of the necessity for a " public tender." Mr. Burnard contended that section 57 of the Harbours Act»did not make a " public tender " an essential in connection with such a scheme as that submitted to the board by Lysnar. Ttie section was not mandatory, but was merely directory. At this stage the Coqrt adjourned until to-day in order to give Mr. Burnard an opportunity of looking up further authority. On resuming this morning Mr. Burnard cited further authorities in support of his argument that section 57 did not compel a harbour boar! to call public tender s for work of the; type referred to in the board's contract with Lysnar. After Mr. Myers had replied Sir Robert Stout stated that the Court was of opinion that section 57 of the Harbours Act, 1908, was mandatory, but the reasons of the Court would be put in writing. The result of this expression of opinion by the Court will be that the appeal by the Gisborne Harbour Board will be allowed and the contract between Lysnar and the board declared invalid.