New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Price-quality regulation

Legal area

Court

5 May 2023

COMMERCE COMMISSION v VECTOR LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1075

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1075
Court

High Court

The Court imposed the agreed pecuniary penalty of $1,158,400 because, applying s87(4) factors, the agreed starting points for 2017–2020 and a 36% mitigation discount are within an appropriate range given the extent of contraventions, Vector's cooperation and remedial actions, the substantial contribution of health and safety measures to outages, and the need to account for totality with the prior $3,575,000 penalty for 2015–2016.
22 Dec 2022

CHORUS LIMITED v MINISTER FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND COMMUNICATIONS [2022] NZHC 3602

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3602
Court

High Court

The Court held the Minister erred in law: the Constraint clause (sch 1AA cl 14/15) prevents recommending first regulations that prescribe service descriptions or conditions that are materially different from the terms set out in a UFB contract (the NIPA). The WSA/Reference Offer and other incorporated documents are not terms 'set out in' the UFB contract; incorporation by reference of those additional materials into the Regulations has a freezing effect and therefore produces descriptions/conditions materially different from the NIPA. The Minister also misinterpreted the purpose of anchor ser…
22 Mar 2019

COMMERCE COMMISSION v VECTOR LIMITED [2019] NZHC 540

Citation

[2019] NZHC 540
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the parties' agreed starting points of $3,000,000 for the 2015 contravention and $2,500,000 for the 2016 contravention, applied a 35% mitigation discount for substantial cooperation and other mitigating factors, and imposed a consolidated pecuniary penalty of $3,575,000, finding that amount falls within the appropriate range after considering the statutory factors, Vector's size, customer harm, and that some SAIDI increase arose from legitimate health and safety policy changes.
28 Jul 2014

THE MAJOR ELECTRICITY USERS’ GROUP INC v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2014] NZHC 1765

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1765
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was denied because MEUG failed to identify a seriously arguable point of law: the High Court's decision was an evaluative conclusion on a closed record that MEUG had not shown the 50th percentile or other measures would be 'materially better' under s 52Z(4); statutory constraints (closed record and limited s 52Z remedial options) and discretionary factors made the proactive relief MEUG sought not tenable as a matter of law.
1 Jun 2012

COMMERCE COMMISSION V VECTOR LIMITED COA CA702/2011

Citation

COA CA702/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that s 52T(1) does not require the Commerce Commission to publish a separate price-reset input methodology and that s 52T(2) does not import such a requirement; the Commission may publish input methodologies on specified matters but price resetting under s 53P(3)(b) remains a regulatory decision for which Parliament did not require a standalone input methodology. Further, s 54K(3), as a transitional provision, permits a broader resetting of default price-quality paths in accordance with s 53P (including resetting based on current and projected profitability) within the 9-month…

New Zealand Case Law

COMMERCE COMMISSION v VECTOR LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1075

CHORUS LIMITED v MINISTER FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND COMMUNICATIONS [2022] NZHC 3602

COMMERCE COMMISSION v VECTOR LIMITED [2019] NZHC 540

THE MAJOR ELECTRICITY USERS’ GROUP INC v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2014] NZHC 1765

COMMERCE COMMISSION V VECTOR LIMITED COA CA702/2011