DISPUTED VALUATION

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 84, 18 March 1931, Page 8

DISPUTED VALUATION

” SUN NEWSPAPER ASSETS CASE FOR COURT OF APPEAL WELLINGTON, March 17. The Court of Appeal is hearing the Sun Newspapers, Ltd,, and New /calami Newspapers, Auckland, case, which is of general interest. By agreement lor sale and purchase executed on September .17 last, Sun Newspapers, Ltd,, agreed to sell to New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., certain assets of the former company situated at Auckland. Clauses ,1 and 2 of tin' agreement provided that the plant, machinery, office equipment, land, amt buildings were to be purchased at valuation, one valuer to be appointed by the buyer and one by the seller, and in the event of any difference of opinion the matter was to be referred to a third valuer, independently appointed by the others, whose decision should .to final. Sun Newspapers, Ltd., appointed Mr Thomas Buddie Arthur, of Auckland, and the other company Mr Hubert Earle Valle, of Auckland, to act. as respective valuers, Differences of opinion having arisen between Messrs Arthur and Vailo as to the value to be placed on the land and buildings, Sir Thomas Waiter Stringer, of Auckland, \yas appointed to act as umpire for the purpose of fixing the value. On November 20, 1030, he gaye his decision, fixing the value of the lapds and buildings at £59,700. Sir Cecil Leys (managing director of New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd.) thereupon wrote to Sir T. Stringer, contending that the assessment had been made on a vrong basis and without regard to the facts placed before him.

Sir Walter Stringer replied that he was willing to put in writing the principles upon which he had made the valuation and if it was still though] that his valuation was incorrect ho was willing for it to be reviewed by a legal tribunal. New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., thereupon tiled a motion to have the award remitted back to Sir Walter Stringer for reconsideration, upon the ground that he had adopted a principle erroneous m law when making his assessment. Sir T. Stringer, at the request of that company lias made an affidavit setting out in full the basis upon which he arrived at his award. The motion has been removed into the Court of Appeal for argument and is being heard to-day. On the Bench arc Sir M. Myers (Chief Justice), and Justices Heed, Adams, Ostler and Smith. Messrs A. H. Johnstone and Rogerson arc appearing for Now Zealand Newspapers Ltd., and Mr Northcrofl, with him Mr P. B. Cooke, and Mr H. V, James, for Sun Newspapers Ltd. New Zealand Newspapers’ Case. Mr Johnstone, fqr Now Zealand Newspapers, ~itd., in support of the motion, said tl.at.Now Zealand Newspapers took the view that Sir Walter Stringer, in making the award, had taken an entirely wrong view of his duties and gone outside the scope of authority. Ho submitted that the agreement of September 17 contained a submission to arbitration. Sir Walter was consequently acting as an arbitrator or umpire in a judicial capacity and not as a valuer. He derived the whole of his authority from the submission to arbitration and was bound to make an award within the scope thereof. If he went outside it, the award might be set aside. The case before the court also came within the class of case where -the arbitrators, having admitted that they had proceeded on wrong principles of law, the awards made by them had been referred back for reconsideration. Sir Walter had made a 'valuation which he was not asked to make. Ho was informed that certain lands and buildings were to be purchased at valuation, He was asked to make suchvaluation, and this was a valuation of the lands and buildings as they stood, at a price which any prudent purchaser would pay for them. Sir Walter had admittedly put upon them the price which originally was paid for them by the vendors, loss certain deductions Sir * filter was bound to take all the factors of value into consideration, but by the terms of his submission was not to value the subject matter as a going concern, The meaning of this restriction >vgs that it was to be valued as haying no connection whatsoever with the business which ivi, pievioiisly carried on there. This restriction had not been given effect to by Sir Waiter. He had also adopted a different basis of calculation in making the valuation of the bud to that adopted in valuing the bm dings. I'his ho had no au Jioritv to do, for he ws»c asked to value them tcgclner Eva i If the award vero good on its face, there were two grounds 'on which ;t could In set as. Jo u- r?for red back —excess of jurisdiction and an admitted mistake of law. Tue cour. adjourned till to-morrow