The Commerce Commission acknowledges the findings of a Commerce Committee report into a case involving a Northland man who felt he had not been dealt with fairly by the Commission over the consequences of a merger decision reached 24 years ago.
The Commerce Commission acknowledges the findings of a Commerce Committee report into a case involving a Northland man who felt he had not been dealt with fairly by the Commission over the consequences of a merger decision reached 24 years ago.
The Government has today tabled its response to the Commerce Committee report on a petition brought by John Andrew Dickson.
Mr Dickson petitioned for compensation for loss of profits as a result of alleged failures of the Commerce Commission, the Examiner of Commercial Practices and the Secretary of Commerce. He claimed that his loss resulted from these parties failing to realise that the conditions attached to a merger clearance decision could not be enforced, and that the Commission failed to inform Mr Dickson of this fact as soon as it could.
The Government is now seeking independent legal advice on whether an ex gratia payment to Mr Dickson is appropriate in the circumstances.
The issue originated with a decision by the Commerce Commission in 1986 to clear a merger between Wrightson Ltd and Dalgety Ltd, with conditions attached.
Following the merger, Mr Dickson, a stock and station agent, alleged he had difficulty accessing stockyards and raised concerns with the Commission that Wrightson was not meeting the conditions of the merger. The Commission investigated these concerns.
In 1992 the Commission advised Mr Dickson that the enforceability of the conditions of the merger were 'questionable' due to differences between the Commerce Act 1975, under which the merger application had been lodged and decided, and the new Commerce Act 1986. The Commission had investigated Mr Dickson's anti-competitive concerns under the 1986 Act. Mr Dickson's business went into liquidation in early 1993.
"There were complex issues at play arising out of the transition from the previous legislation to the new Commerce Act in 1986. At the time, the Commission felt that it acted appropriately in its dealings with Mr Dickson. However, in hindsight we accept that the Commission could have communicated more clearly with Mr Dickson," said Commerce Commission Chief Executive Nicholas Hill.
"We acknowledge the Commerce Committee report's conclusion that the Commission did not cause the losses Mr Dickson claims."
"Obviously in the 24 years since the matter at the heart of this issue arose, our systems and processes have changed, and we continue to make improvements aimed at transparency and certainty for the businesses we deal with," said Mr Hill.
