ONEHUNGA BUSSES

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 6, 29 March 1927, Page 9

ONEHUNGA BUSSES

CLAIM BY COMPANY ASSESSING “FAIR VALUE” (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, To-day. A dispute between the Royal Motor Omnibus Coy., Ltd., and the Auckland City Council, respecting the purchase by the council of the buses run by the company on the Onehunga, Ellerslie, Penrose, and Panmure routes, is being aired before a Full Court today. Mr. Meredith appears for the company, and Mr. Stanton for the council. The appeal is under section 15 of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, and a summary of the case reveals that the company had 28 buses and two garages, one of.which was at Onehunga, and the other at the corner of Manukau and Great South Roads, in the provisions of Section .’5 of the Act, the company sent notice to the council requiring the council to purchase the Duses and property used by the company exclusively for the motor service. The company claimed £28,866, and the council offered £14,284. The claim came before the Compensation Court on February 18, 1927, when no evidence of profits, if any, of the company was tendered. The decision was tiien referred to a Full Court. It is contended by the company that “fair value” is the commercial value of the assets taken as a whole, while the council contends that “fair value” is the total of the value of each bus, and every item of plant and property, taken separately, and recorded as suitable lor the purpose of motor serTlie contentions of the company are: (1) Whether the contention of claimant or respondent is the correct one; (2) if the opinion of the court is that neither is correct, on what basis is “fair value” assessed? (3) U the contention of the claimant is correct, on what basis or principle is the amount to be added to the individual or separate values of the omhibuses yn d other property to be determined.’