SHAREMILKING

Te Puke Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 55, 21 July 1939, Page 4

SHAREMILKING

CASE AT LE PUKE The interpretation of the arbitration -clause-in -the- -Shavemilkor.sk. Act of 1928 was involved in a_ claim, Finlay v. Harrison, heard in the Te Puke Magistrate’s Court at Te Puke, before Mr E. L. Walton, S.M. '- v The plaintiff claimed damages for breaches of certain clauses in a sharemilking agreement entered into between the two parties. There was no provision in the agreement, jwhereby the matter could be referred to arbitration. - Mr W... 5. Holland appeared for the plaintiff, arid Mr A. Jamieson for trie defendant. It " Air Holland contended that as tiiere was no arbitration clause agreement notween the sharemilker and the landowner, the plaintiff had tne right to j l ess his claim in Court without first going to arbitration. Quoting' various legal authorities in support of his contention, he maintained the arbitration clause of the Act referred to a case where an interpretation of an agreement was wanted and did not operate when; liability was involved. The Act was designed for the protection of the sharemilker's since it was expressly stipulated that nothing in the Act should place the sharemilker in a less favourable position: than previously. The arbitration clause therefore could not deny plaintiff the common law right of appeal to the Courts. Mr Holland pointed out the expenses involved in arbitration proceedings. i : ‘,l have always made it a practice of adjourning such cases so that the parties could attempt a settlement by arbitri tion before coming to the Court,’'’ staled Air Walton. .-