CROWN SUITS.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19144, 29 October 1927, Page 11

CROWN SUITS.

CRITICISM OF ACT. STATE'S UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. Mr A. J. Seed (Wellington) moved the following remit at yesterday's session of the annual conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand: — ''That this conference protests against Government trading departments being accorded the protection of the Crown Suits Act." He said that it had been forwarded as the result of a recent Supreme Court case, in which the State Forest Department contracted to supply a quantity of trees but later delivered only about half the quantity contracted for, stating that it required the balance of its trees for its own needs. He said that the position was that the Department competed against private companies and used the Crown Suits Act to protect itself when it desired to break a contract. Mr Seed said Mr Justice Alpers, according to Gazette Law Reports of 1927, on page 230, said: "A gentleman does not plead the Statute of Limitations to escape payment of his just debts; nor does he, one hopes, invoke the Statute of Frauds to evade the obligations of a contract binding on his conscience. The King is. the first gentleman in the realm, and yet he may at any time be made to appear to do such things, or their equivalent under the Crown Suits Act, and that in distant Dominions, by administrative officers who are zealous only to make a profit or avoid a loss for their particular Department. How much more to he deplored is the position when the Royal prerogative is invoked to seize the whole assets of an insolvent company that a trading debt due to the King may be paid, though his liege subjects in competition with him go wanting.

Statute of Limitations. This was. seconded by Mr , H. P. Caughey (Auckland), who said that while tlie Statute of Limitations enabled private individuals to take action against another individual at any time up to six years, the Crown Suits Act restricted the period to twelve months. Mr A. F. Wright (Canterbury) supported the remit. He said the same issue had also been raised in England. The speaker quoted at length from opinions expressed by an English Judge, Lord Shaw, of Dumfermline, and Mr Justice Alpers. The latter said the question was one of pressing urgency in New Zealand, where the activities of the State were much wider than in Britain. Recent legislation had brought the Crown within the scope of a number of Acts. If the Crown engaged in business it should be treated in exactly the same way as any other concern. Mr H. F. Forster (Gisborne) read a letter dealing with the undue contraction as regards Municipal Councils and Harbour Boards, of the ordinary right to bring proceedings. The letter advocated the extension of the period of limitation to, say, one year. Mr A. G. "Lunn (Auckland) said that if the Government would not recognise its obligations in ordinary business it should not enter into it. The remit was passed. Mr Forster's remarks were referred to the executive for further enquiry.