“STERLING” QUESTION

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 150, 21 March 1939, Page 8

“STERLING” QUESTION

Amount Governing Appeal To Privy Council

NEW ZEALAND OR ENGLISH CURRENCY

A submission that the “£5OO sterling” mentioned in the rules governing the right of appeal to the Privy Council meant New Zealand and not English currency was made to the Court of Appeal yesterday by Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C. Mr. O’Leary, with him Mr. A. W. Yortt, Palmerston North, was applying on behalf of Dr. Kenrick Holt Dean, Palmerston North, for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The history of the case is as follows: A jury awarded Mrs. Olive Rita Paterson, Palmerston North, £572 damages against Dr. Dean for negligent treatment of an injured leg. Mr. Justice Quilliam granted Dr. Dean a new trial on grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that the damages were excessive. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Mrs. Paterson against the order for a new trial and affirmed the verdict of the jury. Dr. Dean now wishes to appeal to the Privy Council.

Mrs. Paterson was represented yesterday by Mr. C. 11. Weston, K.C., with him Mr. L. G. Sinclair. The Court consisted of the Chief Justice (‘Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. Justice Smith, and Mr. Justice Fair. Decision was reserved. Mr. O’Leary submitted that the “£5OO sterling” mentioned in the rules did not mean English currency. As the amount involved in the present case was £572 in New Zealand currency the right of appeal lay. A judgment of the Court of Appeal, consisting of Mr. Justice Blair, Mr. Justice Kennedy, Mr. Justice Callan, and Mr. Justice Northcroft was read ■by the Chief Justice. In it Mr. Justice Blair said that the £5OO sterling would be £625 in New Zealand currency. Mr. Justice Smith said that, as the amount involved in that particular case was only £260, the point might not have been argued. Mr. O’Leary: The question is arguable. Bound By Judgment. Mr. Justice Ostler: I am inclined to agree, but as this is a judgment of the Court of Appeal we are bound by it. That is one of the difficulties of having two divisions. Mr. Weston said that he understood that the Court was bound and had not, therefore, prepared argument. If “sterling” were taken to mean English currency the right of appeal might vary from day to day, because the rate of exchange might vary, said Mr. O’Leary. He submitted that the intention was to make a constant figure. It could never have been intended that English currency should be the basis in some ’parts of the Empire and local currency in others. In Hong Kong the amount was 5000 dollars or upward; in Mauritius, 10,000 rupees or upward; on Prince Edward Island, £500; in Saskatchewan, 4000 dollars, with security for appeal, 2500 dollars. Counsel read: the recital in the Court of Appeal Rules, which stated that the object was the equalizing by local circumstances of the conditions under which subjects in the Dominions might appeal. How could it be equalizing the conditions, he asked, if local currency were used in some places and English currency in others?