Commerce Act: Commerce Commission v. Elders Rural Holdings Ltd

Pleading poverty and having shut up shop in New Zealand, Elders Rural finalised a Commerce Commission price-fixing investigation at minimum cost to itself.  Elders is coughing up $200,000 towards Commission costs and paying no fine.  Two years ago, rival PCG Wrightson was fined $2.7 million for joining with Elders to fix prices when implementing a nationwide stock identification system.

PCG Wrightson took the lead in implementing a tagging system imposed by government legislation to track cattle and deer movements.  Getting agreement from other stock and station agents to a set a national tagging rate per animal fell foul of the Commerce Act.  This amounted to price fixing.  The High Court was told Elders fell into line, charging the agreed tagging fee of $25 per cattle beast and $10 per calf for untagged stock presented for sale at Elder’s yards.

Following a 2015 court hearing, PCG Wrightson was ordered to pay $2.7 million for price fixing.  Smaller operator Rural Livestock was fined $475,000.

Elders Rural Holdings talked down its liability in negotiations with the Commerce Commission.  Elders has been sold to Australian interests.  It says it is heavily indebted with no significant assets and is no longer trading in New Zealand.  The High Court approved settlement of the price-fixing investigation: Elders Rural is declared to have acted in breach of the Act and is required to pay $200,000 towards Commission’s costs.  

Commerce Commission v. Elders Rural – High Court (24.10.17)

17.142

Bankruptcy: Willis v. Willis

Leslie Willis was said by the High Court to have bankrupted his former wife over a comparative pittance seemingly for no good reason except to exacerbate her stress, to complicate her legitimate claim in relationship property proceedings and to prolong its final resolution.  Her bankruptcy was annulled as being an abuse of the court process.

The High Court was told Leslie and Anne Willis agreed to a division of their property interests at a 2013 judicial settlement conference.  Their assets were spread across two trusts: a family trust and an investment trust.  Ms Willis and her former husband were trustees of both trusts.  She stood to receive a significant slice of assets valued in total at over $600,000.   Trust assets included two properties in Auckland and one on Great Barrier Island.  One stumbling block emerged.  Operation of the agreed property division was conditional on a satisfactory builder’s report on one of the trust properties which was to be transferred to Mr Willis.  The report found it was a leaky building, reducing its value from that represented in the agreed property division.  Their property division stalled.  Subsequent failed court proceedings by Ms Willis to have the agreement enforced resulted in her being liable to pay court costs to her former husband.  Four years later, she was back at square one with their joint property interests still tied up in the two trusts, no other assets and bankrupted by her former husband for non-payment of some $12,200 court costs.  Since trust deeds for the two trusts disqualified from office any bankrupt trustee, Mr Willis was left in effective control of trust operations.  He asked the High Court to have Ms Willis taken off the land registry titles since she was no longer eligible as a trustee of the property-owning trusts.  She countered by asking the court to annul her bankruptcy.     

Associate judge Sargisson said Mr Willis had deliberately chosen bankruptcy as a weapon of oppression.  It was in Mr Willis’ power to make a distribution to his former wife as a discretionary beneficiary of their family trust in order to meet his claimed debt.  His callous approach to injecting bankruptcy into a relationship property context cried out for the court’s intervention under the Insolvency Act, she said.  Ms Willis’ bankruptcy was annulled with effect from the date of her adjudication on the grounds she should not have been bankrupted.  Annulment means it is as if she was never bankrupt.

Willis v. Willis – High Court (24.10.17)

17.143

Harassment: Wallis v. Rebolledo & Withers

A restraining order against Philip Wallis following bad blood between two rival surf schools at Piha Beach was overturned by the High Court.  Despite proved harassment, conditions attaching to the court order allowing the two surf schools to continue operating side by side indicated a restraining order was not required.

The Harassment Act is designed to impose controls over toxic personal relationships.  Felipe Rebolledo and Chelsea Withers used the Act to deal with a business dispute.

The High Court was told Mr Wallis took exception to a rival surf school set up by Mr Rebolledo and Ms Withers under the name ‘Piha Surf Academy’ at Auckland’s west coast Piha beach.  He claimed they were attempting to build their business on the goodwill attaching to his existing surf school, now operated primarily by his son under the name ‘Piha Surf School’.  Piha has a small permanent population.  Mr Wallis made his dislike very public.  There was evidence of harsh words between Mr Wallis and his business rivals.  He initiated Facebook traffic accusing them of being aggressive and deceitful.  The court was told of Mr Wallis destroying one of his rivals’ surfboards by driving over it and of allegedly driving at the two when they were walking through a carpark.

Finding harassment proved, the District Court imposed a two year restraining order subject to conditions: both businesses were permitted to work the same stretch of beach when giving surf lessons.  Customer safety and notorious tidal rips at Piha Beach meant there were limited venues for any surf business at the beach.

In the High Court, Justice Heath said the Act allows imposition of restraining orders if ‘necessary’ to give legal protection to victims of harassment.  Given the two rivals were being permitted to still work side by side, a restraining order did not appear ‘necessary’, he ruled.  Mr Wallis was warned that a repeat of past behaviour might result in a court order removing his business from Piha.         

Wallis v. Rebolledo & Withers – High Court (20.10.17)

17.141