An e-commerce foray into the China market by Antipodes cosmetics led to a bust up with its Hong Kong-based distributor and an over four million dollar penalty following Accel (HK)’s successful claim for loss of profits.
Controlled by Elizabeth Barbalich, Antipodes New Zealand Ltd positions itself in the market as supplier of premium nature-based skin care products.
A 2019 marketing services agreement with Accel (Hong Kong) has not gone well.
Twenty months into the arrangement, Antipodes fired Accel alleging a failure to reach sales targets. It also alleges Accel damaged Antipodes’ brand by selling product at a significantly discounted price.
When Antipodes sued claiming breach of contract, the High Court referred their dispute to arbitration, as required by their agreement.
Arbitration saw Antipodes ordered to pay Accel: USD 2.2 million, RMB 227,000 plus NZD 671,000 costs.
Reasons for this result are unknown. Arbitrations are heard in private.
Stung by this outcome, Antipodes was back in the High Court claiming errors were made by the arbitrator.
Arbitration rulings can be reviewed for errors of law only, not errors of fact.
Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled there had been no errors of law.
The arbitrator had clearly set out the relevant legal principles she relied on.
Much of what Antipodes claimed were errors of law were complaints about the arbitrator’s loss of profits calculations. Valuations are questions of fact, not questions of law.
The arbitration outcome stands.
Antipodes New Zealand Ltd v. Accel (HK) Company Ltd – High Court (2.07.21) & Court of Appeal (20.02.25)
25.069