14 Dec 2012
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds (including monopoly pricing) were not pleaded or argued at first instance, the live dispute had effectively been resolved by the respondent writing off the invoices, and the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general or public commercial significance nor was it necessary in the interests of justice.
29 Jun 2009
The Court of Appeal held that s4(3) does not impose an obligation on airport companies to set prices as if they operated in a competitive market; judicial review remains available for traditional public law grounds (predetermination, failure to consult, bad faith/corruption or analogous conduct) but courts will not undertake intensive merits-based price setting or wholesale scrutiny of complex pricing components best addressed under the Commerce Act Part 4 or specialist processes; Wild J's strike-outs of monopoly-pricing and broad irrationality/relevant-considerations claims were correct; ste…
18 Nov 2008
The Court struck out all four newly pleaded grounds because they effectively required assessment of whether WIAL's charges produced monopoly profits—a matter for the Commerce Commission not judicial review; implied mandatory considerations were unsupported by s4A or the Act's scheme; substantive unfairness is not a free-standing ground beyond variable intensity unreasonableness; legitimate expectation could not be used to demand a particular substantive outcome absent clear reliance; and leave to reapply for summary judgment was declined because the rules preclude a second application in the…