COURT OF APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 18 March 1931, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL

A PURCHASE DISPUTE. (Jig Telegraph —Per Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 17. The Court of Appeal in re Sun Newspapers Ltd. and New Zealand Newspapers Ltd., by agreement for a sale purchase executed on 17th September last.

Sun Newspapers Ltd. agreed to sell to New Zealand Newspapers Ltd. certain assets of the former company situated at Auckland,

Clauses 1 and 2 of the agreement provided the plant, machinery, office equipment, land and buildings were to be purchased at a valuation, one valuer to he appointed by the buyer and one by the seller. In the event of any difference of opinion the matter was to ho referred to a third valuer, independently appointed by the others whose decision should be final.

Sun Newspapers Ltd. appointed Thomas Buddie Arthur, of Auckland, and tile other Company Hubert Earle Vaile, of Auckland, to act as respective valuers.

Differences of opinion having arisen between Messrs Arthur and Vaile, as to the value to be placed on the land and buildings, Sir Thomas “Walter Stringer of Auckland was appointed to act as umpire for the purpose of fixing the value.

1 ‘ On the 20th November, 19.')0, lie ' gave liis decision fixing the value of lands and buildings at £59,700. Sir Cecil Leys, managing director of N.Z. Newspapers Ltd. thereupon 1 wrote to Air Stringer contending the assessment had been made on a wrong basis, and without regard to the facts placed before him. , Sir Walter Stringer replied that he was willing to put in writing the principles upon which lie had made the valuation and if it was still thought his valuation was incorrect, lie was willing for it to be reviewed by a legal tribunal. N.Z. Newspapers Ltd. thereupon filed a motion to have the award remitted hack to Sir Walter .Stringer for reconsideration, upon the ground that he adopted a principle erroneous in law, when, making his assessment. Air Stringer, at the request of that Company has made an affidavit setting out in full the basis upon which he arrived at his award. The motion, has been removed into the Court of Appeal for argument, and is being heard to-day. On til© Bench are Sir M. Alyers, Chief Justice, Justices Reed, Adams, Ostler and Smith. Messrs A. H. Johnstone and Rogerson are appearing for N.Z. Newspapers Ltd., and Mr Northcroft with him Mr P. B. Cooke and Mr H. V. James for Sun Newspapers Ltd. Johnstone, for N.Z. Newspapers Ltd in support of the motion, said N.Z. , Newspapers Ltd., took the view that dr Walter Stringer, in making tin; award, had taken an entirely wrong view of his duties and had gone outside the scope of his authority. He submitted that the agreement of the 17th of September contained a submission to arbitration. Sir Walter was, consequently, acting as arbitrator or umpire in a judicial capacity, and not as a valuer .He derived the whole of his authority from the submission to arbitration and was bound to make an award within the scope thereo. If he went outside it, the award might be set aside. The case before the Court also-came within tne class oi case where arbitrators having admitted that they had proceeded on wrong priciples of Jaw, the awards made by them had been referred back for reconsideration. Sir Walter Stringer had in ado- a valuation which ho was not asked to make. He was informed that certain lands and buildings were t 0 be purchased at valuation. This was a valuation of the lands and buildings as they stood at a price which any prudent purchaser would pay for them Sir Walter had admittedly, put upon them the price which was originally paid for them by the vendors, less certain deduction. Sir Walter was bound to take all the factors of value into consideration ; but, by terms of the submission, lie was no,t to value the subject matter as a going concern, Tim meaning of this restriction was that it was to be valued as having no connection whatsoever with the business which was previously carried on there. This restriction had not been given effect to by'' Sir Walter. He had also adopted a different- basis of calculation in making a valuation of the land to that adopted by valuing the buildings. This he had no authority to do for lie was asked to value them together. Even if the award were good on its face, there were two grounds m which it could be set aside, or referred back, viz.: (1) Excess of jurisdiction and (-t An admitted mistake of law. The Court adjourned till to-morrow.