REGULATION VOID

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19627, 23 October 1933, Page 4

REGULATION VOID

JUDGMENT IN DAIRYING CASE. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON. October 20. j The Court of Appeal gave its judg- j ment to-d? * in the case Carroll and Another v. tl.e Attorney-General. This originating summons was heard j by the Court of Appeal on October 10 j and 12 and raised the question of the validity of Clause 55 of the general [ dairy regulations made under the Dairy | Industry Act, 1908. The Court declared the regulation to \ be ultra vires and void. The Chief Juatic* (Sir Michael | Myers) in the course of a lengthy J

Judgment, said it had been admitted bv the Solicitor-General, and indeed it' was perfectly clear, that, the clause in question was a serious interference with tile 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 no Justified on a reasonable interpretation of Section 23 of the Dairy Industry Act, 1908, which empowered the Governor-Gen■ ral-in-Council to make regulations as thereby provided. His Honour held that in his opinion there was re thing whatsoever upon any reasonable construction of the Act which could be said to authorise the rcgulaIn his opinion it was made without authority and therefore ultra vires and

void. He concluded his Judgment as follows: "I confess I am not sorry at being compelled to the conclusion that the clause of the regulations under consideration is ultra vires, because if it be thought necessary for the pro- ! tection or benefit of the dairy industry : to interfere, as Clause 35 would interfere, with the liberty of the subject in exercising his 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 *>y parliament itself in appropriate and unequivocal language, rather than by delegated authority.” Justices Reed. MacGregor, Ostler and Smith also in independent judgments held the regulation to be ultra vires and unenforcible.