CROWN IMMUNE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 144, 8 September 1927, Page 9

CROWN IMMUNE

NOT AN ORDINARY LITIGANT AN INTERESTING DECISION “The theory is that the Crown cannot be treated as an ordinairy litigant,” said Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court yesterday when upholding the immunity of the Crown from counter-claims in legal actions. The action arose out of a claim by the Government Forest Service (Mr. Paterson) for £750, the cost of 250,000 seedlings supplied to the New Zealand Redwood Forest, Ltd., of Auckland (Mr. E. 11. Northcroft). A counterclaim was put in by the company for £1,150 damages on the ground that the contract was for 500,000 seedlings, and that it had not been fulfilled. The defence, said Air. Paterson, was based upon the counter-claim, but objection was taken to this on the ground that no such course was legal under the Crown Suits Act. Endeavours had been made to settle the case, but the unreasonable attitude of the defendant company had resulted in the department deciding to stand to its rights. Air. Northcrort pointed out that the action had been pending for some time. The company had advertised extensively .in the expectation of receiving the full order, and advances were made to bond holders. After consulting the authorities, his Honour said he regretted, to say that the objection to the counter-claim raised by Air. Paterson was unanswerable. It would have been more convenient to have disposed of the whole thing, but the Crown was entitled to state the objection, and it must prevail. This decision did not interfere with the rights of defendants to proceed with the case, but the defence would be initiated in the manner stated and no other. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs.