COMMERCE COMMISSION V CARDS NZ LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-2535

COMMERCE COMMISSION V CARDS NZ LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-2535

On an overall assessment of convenience and fairness the balance favoured transfer to Auckland: most defendants, many plaintiffs and the majority of counsel and witnesses are Auckland‑based so aggregate additional cost and inconvenience to them if the case were heard in Wellington would be substantial; Wellington can accommodate the case but that logistical capacity does not outweigh the fairness and efficiency considerations favoring transfer; accordingly the proceedings are to be entered on the Commercial List in Auckland.

Citation
openlaw-956ab619_9acc_4daa_97b2_8e9b2610a413.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Commerce Commission; First Defendant: Cards NZ Limited; Second Defendant: Visa International Service Association; Plaintiff: DSE (NZ) Limited; Third Defendant: ASB Bank Limited; Third Defendant: Bank of New Zealand; Third Defendant: Westpac Banking Corporation; Third Defendant: Westpac New Zealand Limited; Third Defendant: ANZ National Bank Limited; Third Defendant: TSB Bank Limited; Fourth Defendant: Kiwibank Limited; Fourth Defendant: The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited; Fourth Defendant: New Zealand Post Limited; Fifth Defendant: Mastercard International Incorporated; Seventh Defendant: GE Finance and Insurance; Plaintiff: The Farmers Trading Company Limited; Plaintiff: Foodstuffs (Auckland) Limited; Plaintiff: Foodstuffs (Wellington) Cooperative Society Limited; Plaintiff: Foodstuffs South Island Limited; Plaintiff: James Gilmour & Co Limited; Plaintiff: Mississippi Limited; Plaintiff: Noel Leeming Group Limited; Plaintiff: Progressive Enterprises Limited; Plaintiff: General Distributors Limited; Plaintiff: Whitcoulls Group Limited; Sixth Defendant: The Warehouse Financial Services Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Competition/antitrust and Commercial Litigation Re Alleged Commerce Act Breach / Interlocutory Application to Transfer Venue to Commercial List (application Decided)
Outcome
Proceedings transferred to the Commercial List in the Auckland Registry
Legal Topics
Interchange Fees, Venue Transfer, Commercial List, Case Management, Costs Allocation, Commerce Act 1986
Competition Law Commercial Litigation Civil Procedure Interchange Fees Venue Transfer Commercial List Case Management Costs Allocation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commerce Commission

Plaintiff

Cards NZ Limited

First Defendant

Visa International Service Association

Second Defendant

DSE (NZ) Limited

Plaintiff

ASB Bank Limited

Third Defendant

Bank of New Zealand

Third Defendant

Westpac Banking Corporation

Third Defendant

Westpac New Zealand Limited

Third Defendant

ANZ National Bank Limited

Third Defendant

TSB Bank Limited

Third Defendant

Kiwibank Limited

Fourth Defendant

The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Fourth Defendant

New Zealand Post Limited

Fourth Defendant

Mastercard International Incorporated

Fifth Defendant

GE Finance and Insurance

Seventh Defendant

The Farmers Trading Company Limited

Plaintiff

Foodstuffs (Auckland) Limited

Plaintiff

Foodstuffs (Wellington) Cooperative Society Limited

Plaintiff

Foodstuffs South Island Limited

Plaintiff

James Gilmour & Co Limited

Plaintiff

Mississippi Limited

Plaintiff

Noel Leeming Group Limited

Plaintiff

Progressive Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

General Distributors Limited

Plaintiff

Whitcoulls Group Limited

Plaintiff

The Warehouse Financial Services Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition/antitrust and Commercial Litigation Re Alleged Commerce Act Breach / Interlocutory Application to Transfer Venue to Commercial List (application Decided)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Commercial List in Auckland
  2. 2 Appropriate balancing of convenience and fairness between parties when changing venue
  3. 3 Whether cost and convenience of the Commerce Commission justify refusing transfer

Ratio Decidendi

On an overall assessment of convenience and fairness the balance favoured transfer to Auckland: most defendants, many plaintiffs and the majority of counsel and witnesses are Auckland‑based so aggregate additional cost and inconvenience to them if the case were heard in Wellington would be substantial; Wellington can accommodate the case but that logistical capacity does not outweigh the fairness and efficiency considerations favoring transfer; accordingly the proceedings are to be entered on the Commercial List in Auckland.

Court Disposition

Proceedings transferred to the Commercial List in the Auckland Registry

Orders

  • Proceedings to be entered on the Commercial List in the Auckland Registry.
  • Registry to convene a conference after consultation with the parties for the purpose of making any necessary timetable orders.