SHAREMILKING CASE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 40, 24 July 1939, Page 4

SHAREMILKING CASE

BREACH OF AGREEMENT CLAIM AT TE PUKE j The interpretation of the-arbitral tion clause In the Sharemilkers' Act of 1938 was* involved in a claim, Finlay, v Harrison heard in the Te Pukis Magistrate's Court at Te; Puke, fjtofore Mr El L. Walton. S.M. The plaintiff claimed damages for breaches of certain clauses in a share, milking agreement entered into between the two parties.. There was no provision in the agreement whereby the matter could be referred to artyV t ration. . Mr W. S. Holland, appeared foi the plaintiff, and Mr A. Jamiesbr* for the defendant. Mr Holland contended that as there was no arbitration clause agiee ment between the sharemilkcr and the landowner, the plaintiff had tike right to press h's claim in * court without first going to arbitration. Quoting various. legal authorities in support of his. he maintained the arbitration clause ! Act referred to a case where an in-* j terpretation of an, agreement was wanted and did not operate wheiv I liability* was involved. The Act was designed for the protection of the* sharemilkers since it was expressly stipulated thai nothing in the Adt should place the sharemilkcr in a less favourable position than The arbitration, clause therefore cot*Kl not deny plaintiff the common law right of appeal to the courts. Msr Holland pointed out the expenses involved in arbitration proceedings. ; f'l have always made it a practice of adjourning such cases so that the parties could attempt a settlement by arb'tration before coming to the court," stated Mr Walton. -%//"