BUSES AT WHANGAREI

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21546, 18 July 1933, Page 12

BUSES AT WHANGAREI

NON-BENEWAL OP LICENCE SUPREME COURT INVOKED WRIT APPLICATION FAILS Tho justice of a decision arrived at by tho No. 1 District Transport Licensing Authority at Whangarei after a sitting on May 30 was challenged before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiffs were F. B. Smith and T. E. Woodman, trading as Hamilton and Company, motor-bus proprietors, of Whangarei (Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. Turner). Thqy applied for a writ of certiorari against the Licensing Authority (Mr. Meredith and Mr. McCarthy), to remove their application for a licence to the Supreme Court, and they also sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Licensing Authority from interfering with the right they claimed to enrrv on certain bus sew ices.

Mr. Johnstone said that the No. 1 District Transport Licensing Authoritv in April, 1932, issued two licences to tho plaintiffs to carry on motor-bus services from AVhangarei to Whangarei Hospital and from Whangarei to Mairtown. In Fobruary last tho plaintiffs put in an application for renewal and this was heard by the authoritv on May 30. The plaintiff Woodman and his solicitor. Mr. Trimmer, were present at the proceedings, and Mr. Trimmer argued for the renewal of the licence. Remedy by Appeal Objection was taken to the renewal by a rival company, and no evidence was called for. The application was considered by the Licensing Authority in committee. On June 2 Mr. Trimmer heard casually that tho application had been rofused, and immediately mado inquiries. The same day notice to this effect was received. Mr. Meredith said the plaintiffs' proper remedy was appeal and thev had appealed. The appeal would bo heard next Thursday.

His Honor: It seems to me on the face of it as 'A the appeal would acknowledge the validity of the proceedings below. You either appeal or you do not. Mr. Johnstone said an appeal could be abandoned or proceeded with. Tho position in connection with the appeal was that they wanted to preserve tho whole of thoir rights. , His Honor said it had been decided, that an appeal was a recognition of the validity of the proceedings from which appeal was made. Mr. Johnstone said that an act of appeal did not impl.v an election between tho two remedies, and both were still onen to them. He submitted that whether a motor-bus service was necessary or desirable was purely a. juatter of fact. Prima facie these services were necessary and desirable on May 30, othenvi.se a licence would not have been in existence for them.

No Evidence Galled Nothing to the contrary was hinted at. during the sitting, and two of the three members of the authority haa no personal knowledge as to the position of the services. No evidence was called, and the authority must have acted either on its own knowledge or on knowledge conveyed to it from an outside source. It was a Court of justice bound to berrr both sides. If' it thought the plaintiffs' services unnecessary or undesirable, it was its duty to give them an opportunity to be heard on their own behalf. The principles of natural justice had clearly been defied. Mr. Turner discussed the degree of pfoof required of an applicant for a licence, and said less proof was required for a renewal than for a now licence. It was claimed that this licence had been refused "in the public interest," but the questions asked by members of tho authority showed they had already decided that the service was necessary and desirable. Mr. Meredith said every licensing authority had power to regulate- its own procedure, the only restriction being that if they accepted an adverse representation the person affected should have due notice. Twelve Buses Operating

There were 12 buses operating in tho area in question, so it was obvious that the renewal could not be taken for granted. If the plaintiffs came with nothing to support their application they could not complain if they did not get a decision in their favour. In, any event, certiorari was discretionary. Authorities were quoted by Mr. McCarthy to show that the licensing authority had power to adjudicate even without evidence. . His Honor said the authority had the claims of the competing companies put before it, and how could he interfere with the decision? The- parties must have known that it was their duty to tender such evidence as they thought fit, and it was quite plain that theLicensing Authority was entitled to come to the conclusion that it did. The plaintiffs had not dicharged tho onus of proof, and it was unnecessary for him to go into the technical questions that had been raised. He would dismiss the motion with costs.