JURISDICTION QUESTIONED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19862, 27 July 1934, Page 10

JURISDICTION QUESTIONED

TRANSPORT APPEAL BOARD TIMARU OPERATOR’S CASE A case similar in many respects to that in which Anstiss Motors (Nelson) are appealing to the Supreme Court for a ruling as to the constitution of the Transport Appeal Board came before No. 8 District Licensing Authority yesterday when W. Boag (Timaru), who operates a freight service between Christchurch and Dunedin, applied for a renewal of his license and an extension in the number of trips a week. Boag appeared before the Central Licensing Authority, comprising Sir Stephen Allen, and Mr H. B. S. Johnstone in October 1933, when he applied for a licence to run three vehicles as required, but the Authority granted a license for only one vehicle limited to three trips a week. Boag then appealed against that decision and went before the Transport Coordination Board in April 1934, the personnel of the Beard being Sir Stephen Allen, Mr H. B. S. Johnstone and Mr L. Alderton. At that session the appeal was disallowed, the Board confirming the decision previously arrived at. Yesterday before No. 8 District Authority, which comprises Messrs J. D. Hutchison, M. Bethell and G. S. Cray, Mr H. J. Knight, who represented Boag, made further application for the renewal of the applicant’s existing license with an extension to permit the use of three vehicles. Mr Knight outlined the history of the case and stated that it was similar to the Nelson case on a point of the personnel of the two bodies which heard the case previously being materially the same. A similar position had arisen in Nelson, and the question of the jurisdiction of the Co-ordination Board over cases with which two of its members had dealt as members of the Central Authority was to be decided by the Supreme Court.

The chairman (Mr Hutchison) raised the point whether the Authority were empowered to deal with Boag’s case. Section 19 of the Act stated that no District Authority could hear within six months a case in which the Coordination Board had given its decision, or could give a decision which would, in effect, contravene the Board’s decision.

After considerable argument, it was agreed to adjourn the case to Christchurch, by which time the decision of the Supreme Court in the Nelson case would be available.