“AVAILABILITY” RATING

Taranaki Daily News, 23 July 1931, Page 7

“AVAILABILITY” RATING

SETTLER SEEKS INJUNCTION CLAIM TO A PRIOR CONTRACT. COURT DECIDES FOR THE BOARD.' By Telegraph.—Press Association. Blenheim, Last Night. Whether the Marlborough Power Board, after declining to supply a ratepayer with electricity without a guarantee that he would take a minimum quantity of £3O worth for a period of five years, can impose an availability rate on such ratepayer were questions put to the Supreme Court to-day in an action in which Russell Trcgonning asked for an injunction restraining the power board from proceeding against him for the recovery of the availability rate. Judgment was given in favour of the board. His Honour said the case was of great interest as it would have effect all over New Zealand. He remarked that it was oppressive for a email man, but the law. had to be administered. At first sight the Case presented some diffi* euliies, but it had been well argued and he had been able to come to a conclusion. The judge proceeded to review the facts and stated that the plaintiff claimed that he was not liable for the availability rate, firstly because energy was not available to him at the usual tariff, and secondly because he claimed to have made a separate contract in 1927 for the supply of energy at a minimum of £l5 per annum as compared with £3O pet annum now demanded as a guarantee by the board. The facts shortly were that the land where the plaintiff resided was not in the board’s area but was contiguous to the transmission lines, so that anything done in the way of collecting guarantees was purely tentative. In December, 1920, plaintiff made an offer to the board to pay a minimum of £l5 per annum for live years. He claimed that this amounted to a contract by him to take, and by the board to supply, electricity when it became available at liis property at £l5 per annum. His Honour Was Satisfied, however, that that was not the legal meaning of the documents. They were merely applications and had not been accepted by the board. On the contrary, they were definitely declined and the plaintiff was notified that lie could not secure a supply of electricity unless ho entered into the Same guarantee as his neighbours, which was £3O per annum. There was no doubt that energy was available to the plaintiff if he were prepared to pay for it at the rates set out by tiie board. He had refused to do so and it seemed to His Honour that the board would be travelling outside its statutory authority if it Supplied him on better terms than his neighbours. He found that energy was available to the plaintiff and that the claim to a separate contract could not be maintained. In these circumstances there could be no legal or technical defence to the rate imposed by the board. The iqotion for an injunction would be dismissed with costs (£l5 15s) and disbursements.