CLAIM FOR £3000

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22900, 1 December 1937, Page 16

CLAIM FOR £3OOO

ROAD I'AVING PROCESS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST INVENTOR [I?Y TKLKGIUPH —'PRESS ASSOCIATION' | CHn ISTCHURCn, Tuesday Plans to pave tho roads of Britain with a method invented in Christchnrch and successfully exploited in Now Zealand by British Pavements (Canterbury), Limited, led to an action for £3OOO commenced in tlio Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Northcroft to-day. The plaintiff was a Scottish company, Honing Road Surfaces, Limited, of Edinburgh, and tho defendant a Christchurch civil engineer, Archibald Donald Paterson, tho principal shareholder ofBritish Pavements (Canterbury), Limited, a New Zealand firm. Counsel told how Paterson had gone to Britain to exploit his invention, having enjoyed outstanding success with it in New Zealand. As a direct outcome of his mission tho plaintiff company was formed in 1934 and lie was ono of tho foundation directors. Hopes Not Realised High hopes of substantial financial success were entertained and some of tho interested parties enjoyed visions of British roads paved in whole blocks across tho map with Paterson's " Honin " method. From several main causes those hopes were not realised and Paterson returned to New Zealand to concentrate on tho affairs of his original company. His refusal to go back led to this action for £3OOO for an alleged breach of contract. From a heavy file of exhibits and references, consisting chiefly of letters and minutes of directors' meetings, counsel told how a trial stretch of paving had been laid down at Henley, Oxford, but was unsatisfactory. This, combined with the failure of Patcrson's application for a patent, his difficulties with another road paving firm, lack of capital and trouble with his New Zealand company, whoso directorate, he said, left him " between the devil and the deep blue sea," gave riso to substantial problems. Evidence on Commission The Court had before it a formidable volume of evidence taken on commission in Scotland, and after his address, lasting the greater part of four hours, counsel for the plaintiff was still engaged 011 the evidence at tho end of the day's sitting. It is anticipated that tho action will occupy the Court for tho remainder of the week. Witnesses to be called for the defence will include Colonel G. J. Smith, who, in Britain in 1935, as chairman of directors of British Pavements (Canterbury), Limited, made an endeavour to settle the difficulties. Mr. A. N. Haggitt, of Dunedin, with him Mr. J. A. Niblock, appeared for tho plaintiff company. The defendant was represented by Mr. A. T. Donnelly and Mr. T. A. Gresson. Counter-claim Brought Against the company's claim for £3OOO was a counter-claim brought by the defendant for £Bl2 10s as money alleged to be duo to him under an agreement between the parties. Stating its claim, the plaintiff company set out that the defendant had received 2000 fully paid shares in the company and under the agreement he was to act as manager at £750 a year. He was to give to the company the whole rights and details of his paving process and was under contract to give his services for two years. It was alleged that he failed to keep this contract and that because of this the operations of the company were brought to a standstill.