ELECTRIC POWER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23381, 24 June 1939, Page 19

ELECTRIC POWER

PORTLAND STEAM PLANT INJUNCTION CHALLENGED APPEAL COURT HEARING [by TKI.KGH.U'H —OWN COHKKSrONnKNT] "WELLINGTON, Friday Appeals by both parties to a dispute against the judgment of Mr. Justice Fair, were heard to-dnv by the Court of Appeal, consisting of the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr. Justice Ulair, Mr. Justice Johnston and Mr. Justice Xorthcroft. The parties were the .AttorneyGeneral, acting on behalf of the North Auckland Electric-Power Hoard and Wilsons (New Zealand) Portland Cement, Limited. The right of the company to distribute beyond the limits of its own property, and particularly to Whangarei, electricity generated by its steamdriven plant at Portland, was contested irt a Supreme Court action brought by the Attorney-General for the power board, the case being heard in Auckland by .Mr. Justice Fair. Supreme Court Decision The board sought, a declaration that such transmission of electricity by the company was unlawful, and an injunction restraining the company from using electricity from its steam-driven plant, except for its own consumption. In his judgment His Honor stated that he had decided to issue an injunction to this effect, exception being made for special circumstances. From this judgment both parties are appealing. the company front the whole judgment and the AttorneyGeneral from the qualification that there may be special circumstances which may justify the company using ; its electric lines for transmitting steam-genera ted power.

Mr. North and Mr. Astley are appearing for the company, and Mr. Rogerson and Mr. Terry for the Attorney-General. Counsel's Submissions Mr. Rogerson submitted that under the Public Works Act ami the terms of the licence granted to the company, there was authority to transmit steam generated power, and consequently the actions of the company had not been unlawful. Jf. however, that was wrong and such transmission was unlawful, the Attorney-General was not entitled to an injunction, because the policy of the Court was not to grant an injunction where there was an effective alternative remedy. Jn this case, alternative remedies were supplied by the licence itself and by the provisions of the Public Works Acts. Moreover, the Court had a discretion in granting injunctions, and in this particular case the facts were such that the Court's discretion would be exercised in favour of the company. Finally, if an injunction was considered necessary, it should not be absolute in form, but should enable the company to supply Whangarei or any other place with steam-generated power when hydro power was not available through causes beyond the com pa ni v's con t-rol. The Court adjourned until Monday, when the hearing will be resumed.