DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16813, 3 June 1926, Page 5

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

COMPANIES' APPLICATION. SUPREME COURT DECISION. 'By Telccraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The judgment delivered by the Chief Justice, in declining to give a declaratory judgment in the matter of questions put by the Dairy Proprietary Association and the Waikato Dairy Co., Ltd., in regard to the powers of the Dairy Produce Control Board, stated, inter alia: " The material placed before us is meagre, but it appears to be common ground that after the issue of the originating summons the board about May 27, 1926, passed a resolution that it should assume, control over the export of dairy produce as from midnight, on August 31, 102 G. "It is asked whether the effect of the resolution was that all dairy produce manufactured and owned by the plaintiffs, then in existence or thereafter to come into existence, passed, without further act of the board, under its absolute control. The question is limited to the produce of the plaintiffs, but ft is clear that it was intended to relate to the produce of all proprietary companies. "All other questions relate to produce generally, and it is conceded that if the question was answered in the affirmative it is desired that the Court should answer other questions stated in the summons.' Object of the Summons. " In the present case it is not disguised that the object of the summons is to obtain a judicial opinion as to the general powers of the board. Nothing short of that will suit the purposes of the plaintiffs. "We are satisfied that the Court ought not to place itself, as it is invited to do, practically in the position of counsel advising owners of proprietary factories or exporters of dairy produce upon the interpretation of the statute. The application has the grave objection that the Court, if it granted it, would be compelled to define statutory powers in the abstract without knowledge of the facts and circumstances under which such powers might bo exercised, and without any certitude that many of the powers, about which questions are asked, will ever be exercised. "Moreover, if the Court were, to yield to the application it might be called upon to give an anticipatory interpretation of many kinds of documents, such as deeds, wills, memoranda, and articles of association, bylaws of local authorities and regulations made by the Governor-in-Council. Not tho Only Bodies Interested. " Furthermore, the plaintiffs arc not the only persons, nor even the most numerous body of persons, interested in the questions raised regarding the interpretation of the Act. Co-operative factories and suppliers to co-operative factories are vitally interested in the questions. If proprietary companies can export their produce it affects the efficiency of control and directly affects all co-operative and oilier factories who are subject to control. It is clear, therefore, that all factories who favour absolute control and their suppliers are interested in the questions asked to be determined. If they arc not made parties to the proceedings, they will not be bound by our determination. "To render an order determining the questions asked of any value all interested parties would require to be joined. In face of the numerous conflicting interests this would be a most inconvenient proceeding. It has been held that the Court ought not, on an originating summons, to decide a question of construction which, in whichever way it was decided, did not necessarily put an end to litigation. " On the whole, therefore, we think that the Court in its discretion should refuse to answer these questions. Our decision places no real difficulty in plaintiffs' way. Upon any action contemplated by the board, which they claim to contravene their rights, they can obtain a decision of the Court on an action claiming a declaration of right or an injunction. They cannot, however, in such an action as the present, obtain the opinion of the Court on the interpretation of substantially all the provisions of the statute. " The application for directions as to service may stand over in order that the parties may, if so advised, take the matter to the. Higher Court. As all Hie parties desired the Court to determine the questions raised by 'originating summons wo do not allow costs."