12 Nov 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise a question of public or general importance and did not disclose an apparent miscarriage of justice, and therefore did not satisfy s13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003; the repeal of the Wool Board Act 1997 meant the issues had no broader significance beyond the parties.
15 Aug 2007
The Court held that Saxmere's promotional activities did not engage s6(6) because the Board had not determined that discrete promotion of Saxon or Saxmere wool constituted an element of its statutory functions; s6(6) only applies once the Board has decided a particular function/element is to be performed and then must consider alternatives. Accordingly the Board did not breach s6(6) in appointing Merino New Zealand, in capitalising MNZCL, or in declining Saxmere funding, and the High Court orders based on contrary findings were set aside.
6 Dec 2005
The Court held that the Wool Board breached s6(6) of the Wool Board Act 1997 by failing to consider reasonable alternative mechanisms and entities and to satisfy itself that the chosen mechanism was likely the most efficient and effective means in May 1998 (declining Saxmere) and in August 2001 (capitalising NZMC). Restitution of levies was denied because the levy was lawfully imposed and the Woolwich principle does not extend to spending choices where the levy was validly collected. The Court recognised a private cause of action for breach of s6(6) and a duty of care in negligence limited to…