ONEKAKA RIGHTS

Timaru Herald, Volume CL, Issue 22065, 11 September 1941, Page 8

ONEKAKA RIGHTS

Forfeiture Suit

Hearing Of Warden

(PA.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 8. The hearing of the Onekaka case was resumed in the Warden’s" Court to-day before Jx T. E. Maunsell. SAI.

Mr Weston, continuing his address on behalf of Golden Bay Proprietary, Ltd., submitted that if there was any ambiguity or difficulty in interpreting section i 3 (2) of the Iron and Steel Industries Act the Court should lean against an interpretation that would permit an injustice being done. Mr

Weston summed up his argument laying stress on the agreement between the receivers and the Crown made in September, 1931, which he submitted relieved the receivers from complying with tire labour and mining clauses of the lease and other licences. Therefore. he argued, there were no grounds for forfeiture.

Mr Sim, for Pacific Steel, emphasised that the Court, though purporting to be a court of forfeiture, was nevertheless a court of compensation. It was asked to decree in effect that the privileges were of no value and to invoke the Mining Act in the circumstances was to misapply it. No decree of forfeiture was necessary as the Crown had already taken the privileges by virtue of the Act, and the lessees in the present circumstances were thus compelled to go through proceedings in the Warden's Court and Compensation Court to vindicate their rights. The case was apart from any other case of its kind under the Mining Act in the magnitude of the issues at stake. An attempt was being made to forfeit privileges which, up to the date of the passing c. the special Act. were unforfeiteble. The question was deal with that the Warden’s Court was a court of equity having wide discretion which had been held by a House of Lords authority to be unfettered in any way. The only restrictions upon the Court’s powers were that the conclusion was to be iair to the lessee.

Counsel reviewed the facts relating to Pacific Steel. He emphasised that it had come into existence with the approval < * the Crown for the express purpose c. organising the iron and steel industr . It l.ad spent £44.000 up to the passing of the Act in the carrying out of this purpose and-that it had been thwarted onlv by the indecision of the Government concerning the establishment of the industry'. The Government became decisive only when it decided ’t the steel Industry was to be a State industry. From that moment further organisation of the industry; bv Pacific Steel became impossible The companv also contended that the Crown had taken full advantage of all the work done by Pacific Steel toward establishing the industry without payment of any kind, and its attempt now to forfeit its privileges without the payment of compensation either for the privileges or for the work done by Pacific Steel was inequitable and disentitled it to a decree of forfeiture. The hearing will be continued tomorrow when the Solicitor-General will address the Court on behalf of the Crown.