Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Vector Limited V Commerce Commission (SC 46/2012)


Supreme Court of New Zealand

15 November 2012

MEDIA RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

VECTOR LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION (SC 46/2012)
[2012] NZSC 99

PRESS SUMMARY

Click here for Full Decision: Vector_Ltd_v_Commerce_Commission.pdf


This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

The Commerce Commission has price control functions under pt 4 of the Commerce Act 1986 (the Act) which came into effect on 14 October 2008 and replaced the previous pts 4, 4A and 5. Vector Ltd is subject to pt 4 in two capacities: under sub-pt 9 as an electricity distributor and under sub-pt 10 as a gas distributor. Sub-pt 9 – which is primarily important in this case – provides for price control through default and customised price-quality path regulation. An important component of price-quality path regulation is the setting and resetting of starting prices. Starting prices govern the prices which can be charged at the beginning of a regulatory period. The current five year regulatory period began on 1 April 2010. The starting prices for this period were set by the Commission on 30 November 2009. Under ss 54K(1) and 53P(3), it was open to the Commission to set those prices by reference either to its assessment of the current and projected profitability of each supplier or by rolling-over the prices which were applicable as at 31 March 2010. The Commission took the latter approach.

An important feature of pt 4 is the requirement for the Commission to publish input methodologies. These constrain the Commission’s evaluative functions, in particular as to the assessment of profitability. The Commission did not publish input methodologies until 22 December 2010. So, at the time the current starting prices were set on 30 November 2009, input methodologies relevant to profitability assessments were not in place. This was PO Box 61, Wellington, New Zealand Telephone 64 4 918 8222 Facsimile 64 4 914 3560


the primary reason why the Commission, at that time, opted to roll-over the prices applicable as at 31 March 2010 rather than engage in profitability assessments.

The Commission’s position is that under s 54K(3), and by reason of the publication of input methodologies, it is now able to reset starting prices on the basis of profitability assessments. Vector disputes this and relies on two broad arguments: first, that the Commission was obliged to publish input methodologies which were specific to starting price resets and, because it has not done so, it may not resort to its s 54K(3) power to reset prices; and, secondly that, in any event, the publication of input methodologies does not entitle the Commission to resort to its s 54K(3) power to reset the starting prices initially fixed for the regulatory period which commenced on 1 April 2010 Vector was successful in the High Court before Clifford J but the Commission appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the High Court judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Vector’s appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment.

The Court closely examined the statutory provisions of the Act to discern the intended operation of the price control regime once it is mature. It also looked at how the transition to the new regime is to be effected. In relation to Vector’s first argument, the Court concluded that the Act did not require the Commission to publish an input methodology addressing the resetting of starting prices. The Court did not agree with Vector that the absence of such an input methodology left the new price control regime in an unacceptably uncertain state. And although the Court accepted that Vector would have had more extensive merits review rights if a starting price reset input methodology was published, it did not see this as a controlling consideration.

The Court also rejected Vector’s second argument, holding that s 54K(3) permits the Commission to reset, by reference to profitability assessments based on the later published input methodologies, the starting prices which had been initially fixed for the current regulatory period by reference to prices applicable as at 31 March 2010. The contrary argument placed an unnecessary gloss on the statutory text and its acceptance would result in a substantial deferment of the practical implementation of the sub-pt 9 regime, which would not be consistent with the purpose of the statute.

Click here for Full Decision: Vector_Ltd_v_Commerce_Commission.pdf


ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Plain Packs Plan: Gordon Campbell On Tobacco Politicking (And The TPP Death Watch)

Has Act leader David Seymour got the easiest job in the world, or what? Roll out of bed, turn on the radio and hmm…there do seem to be a lot of problems out there in the world. Must think of something. And so it came to pass that this morning, David Seymour took up his sword and shield to fight for a world that’s about to be denied the rich and vibrant beauty of tobacco advertising. More>>

ALSO:

.


RECENT TPP MEETING:

Professor Ian Shirley: The Budget That Failed Auckland

The 2016 budget offered Auckland nothing in the way of vision or hope and it continued the National Government’s threats against the Auckland Council. Threatening the Council with over-riding its democratic processes if it fails to release land for housing is a bullying tactic aimed at diverting attention away from the fundamental problems with housing in the region. More>>

ALSO:

PM's Post Cab Presser: Budgets, Trusts And Pacific Diplomacy

Today Prime Minister John Key summarised last week’s budget and provided further detail about his upcoming trip to Fiji. He said that there has been “plenty going on” in the last couple of weeks and emphasised the need for Auckland council to facilitate more housing supply. More>>

ALSO:

Max Rashbrooke: A Failure Of Measurement: Inside The Budget Lock-Up

Shortly after the embargo lifted at 2pm news organisations started filing reports claiming that health, and to a lesser extent housing and education, were the ‘big winners’ out of the Budget. It failed to take into account the fact that in most cases the apparent increases were in fact cuts. Because of the twin effects of inflation and population. More>>

ALSO:

DOCtored Figures: Minister Clarifies DOC Budget

“Commentators have overlooked the fact $20.7m of that perceived shortfall is new funding for Battle for our Birds 2016, provided for in last week’s Budget...” DOC also has approval in principle to carry over a further $20m to 16/17 due to unexpected delays in a number of projects. More>>

ALSO:

For The Birds: Gordon Campbell On The Budget

Budgies, so their Wikipedia page says, are popular pets around the world due to their small size, low cost, and ability to mimic human speech. Which is a reasonably good description of Finance Minister Bill English eighth Budget. . More>>

Max Rashbrooke On The 2016 Budget

The best label for this year’s announcement by Bill English might be the ‘Bare Minimum Budget’. It does the bare minimum to defuse potential political damage in a range of areas – homelessness and health are prime among them – but almost nothing to address the country’s most deep-rooted, systemic social problems. Indeed the Budget hints that these problems may get worse. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On Bank Scandals (And Air Crashes)

Last month, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) filed proceedings against Westpac over activities that have some distinct echoes of the Libor scandal. More>>

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news