Use of grape sugar defended

Press, 11 April 1979, Page 10

Use of grape sugar defended

PA Auckland Mr Justice Barker has reserved his decision in the Supreme Court, at Auckland on a plea by Penfolds Wines (N.Z.), Ltd, to have an interim order set aside which restrains Penfolds from using imported grape concentrate. The interim order was granted in the Supreme Court at Auckland after an application by four other wine producers — Montana, Cooks, Corbans and McWilliams. For Penfolds, Mr S. C. Ennor said grape sugar, or grape juice concentrate, was a replacement for cane sugar syrup normally imported from Fiji. The grape concentrate would result in a better quality wine. Not enough grapes were grown in New Zealand to provide this concentrate, which Penfolds imported from South Australia. Penfolds was not breaking any regulations as the law allowed a specified proportion of sugar to be added in its wine-making process. Mr Justice Barker said the concentrate was surely just grape juice with the

water boiled away and was not necessarily sugar, as defined by regulation. “Can you say that grape sugar concentrate equals sugar?” he asked. Mr Ennor conceded that the concentrate was grape juice with the water boiled away and that water could be added to it. But Penfolds had no intention of doing this and had given such an undertaking. Mr Ennor said Corbans applied for a licence to import twice the quantity of concentrate that Penfolds did, although in the affadivit Corbans implied that this was done “tongue in cheek." The Corbans firm had since withdrawn its application. Penfolds stood to lose $593,000 if the injunction stayed in force because it was committed to buy more concentrate and have stocks of wine with the concentrate in it. “The other wine-makers were seeking to restrain Penfolds from an ordinary business development,” Mr Ennor said. “They have no right to have their businesses protected by the injunction they seek,” he submitted.