DAIRY REGULATIOM VOID

Taranaki Daily News, 21 October 1933, Page 6

DAIRY REGULATIOM VOID

TRANSFERENCE OF SUPPLY DECISION OF APPEAL COURT. INTERERENCE WITH LIBERTY. WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY. rsy relegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 20. An endeavour to upset the new dairy regulation forbidding the transfer of supply made in the Court of Appeal on October 10, 11 and 12, the action being that of John Charles Carrol, solictor, and «• William James Keeley, both of Te Aroha, against the Attorney-General, arises out of certain provisions of the dairy produce regulations of 1933, which forbid the transfer of supply of milk or cream from one factory to another during the currency of a season. The Court’s reserved decision was delivered to-day. The object of these provisions is to prevent suppliers threatening to transfer ' supplies of milk and butter to another factory if suppliers do not receive higher grading, the Crown contending that this has a bad effect on the general quality of the supply and consequently on the butter and cheese produced. Carroll and Keeley, who jointly farm extensive properties near Te Aroha, complained that recently dissension arose between shareholders of the dairy factory to which they supply their cream and milk, and that as a result of the policy initiated by a bare majority of directors their position is being very prejudicially affected. They endeavoured to transfer their supply to a factory nearer their farms, but were ultimately prevented from doing so by the regulations. w They applied to the Court by an originating summons to have the. regulations declared void as being in excess of the powers conferred upon the Gover-nor-in-Council by the Dairy Industry Act of 1908. In view of the importance of the question it was removed for argument into the Court of Appeal.

CHIEF JUSTICE’S REASONING.

The question was raised of the validity of clause 55 of the general dairy regulations. The Court in its judgment this morning declared the regulation to be ultra vires and void. Sir Michael Myers, Chief Justice,, in the course of a lengthy judgment said that it had been admitted by the Solicitor-General—and, indeed, it was perfectly clear—that the clause in question was a serious interference with the liberty of the individual farmer to carry on his lawful business in his . own way. . His Honour said that the whole question was whether the regulation could be justified on a reasonable interpretation of section 23 of the Dairy Industry Act, 1908, which empowered the Gover-nor-General-in-Council to make regulations as thereby provided. His Honour held that in his opinion there was nothing whatsoever upon any reasonable construction of the Act which could be said to authorise the regulation. In his opinion it •was made without authority and therefore was ultra vires and void. He concluded his judgment as follows: “I confess that I am not sorry at being compelled to theconclusion.that a clause of the regulations under consideration is ultra vires, because if it be thought necessary for the prosecution or benefit of the dairy industry to interfere, as clause 55 would interfere with the liberty of a subject in exercising a lawful trade or business in his own way—as to which it is not for me to express an opinion—it seems to ’me that the matter is one which should be dealt with by Parliament itself in appropriate and unequivocal language rather than by delegate authority.” Judges Reed, MacGregor, Ostler and Smith also gave independent judgments and held the regulation to be ultra vires and unenforcible.