Legal Research
Cases
Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd v Saxmere Co Ltd

Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd v Saxmere Co Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 17 November 2010 48 min read

Contents

On this page

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA784/2009
[2010] NZCA 513
BETWEENWOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Appellant

ANDSAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED
First Respondent
ANDTHE ESCORIAL COMPANY LIMITED
Second Respondent
ANDRICHARD KING
Third Respondent
ANDRUSSELL STEWART EMMERSON AND FOREST RANGE LIMITED
Fourth Respondents

Hearing:30 June - 1 July 2010

Court:Hammond, Chambers and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:J S Kos QC, D H McLellan and J L Bates for Appellant
S J Grey and L M Ritchie for Respondents

Judgment:17 November 2010 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The appeal is allowed.
B        The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C        The declarations made in the High Court are quashed.
DThe finding that the appellant was liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and in negligence is quashed.

E The finding that the respondents were entitled to costs in the High Court is quashed. Costs in the High Court are remitted to that Court for consideration by it in light of this Court’s judgment.
F In respect of costs in this Court, the respondents must pay to the appellant costs for a complex appeal on a 2B basis with usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel. The respondents’ liability is joint and several.

REASONS
Hammond J (dissenting in part)   [1]
Ellen France J   [214]
Chambers J  [242]
HAMMOND J
Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction  [1]
A fresh appeal is ordered  [4]
The status of the prior judgment of this Court  [9]
Factual background
      Introduction  [15]
      The wool industry in New Zealand  [16]
      Wool marketing in New Zealand  [19]
      Saxon sheep and the promotion of Saxon wool  [22]
The central complaint  [29]
The relevant legislation
      Prior to the Wool Board Act 1997  [30]
The Wool Board Act 1997  [49]
Saxmere’s administrative law claims, in broad terms  [60]
The first challenged decision: the Merino New Zealand decision          [62]
The second challenged decision: the May 1998 decision  [65]
      The third challenged decision: the capitalisation decision  [69]
A fourth challenged decision: retrospective funding  [72]
      An obliquely challenged decision: November 1998  [73]
The Merino New Zealand decision  [74]
      Factual context  [75]
      The impugned decision  [80]
Was the decision lawful?

(i)     Introduction  [84]
(ii)     The plaintiffs’ submissions in the High Court  [86]
(iii)    The defendant’s submissions in the High Court  [93]
(iv)    The High Court Judge’s treatment of the construction of s 6(6)    [97]
(v)     The first appeal  [101]
(vi)    The Supreme Court  [105]
(vii)   Summarising the competing arguments  [106]
Evaluation of the construction arguments
(i)     Who is to decide?  [113]
(ii)     The proper construction and its application  [119]
(iii)    Relief  [138]
The May 1998 decision
      The factual context  [146]
      A lawful decision?  [152]
      Relief  [161]
The capitalisation decision  [162]
      The lawfulness of the decision  [166]
A summary on the public law claims  [170]
Restitution of levies  [174]
Breach of statutory duty  [182]
Negligence  [194]
Some points in response  [200]
      The proper approach to s 6  [201]
      The Merino New Zealand decision  [205]
      The May 1998 decision

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd v Saxmere Co Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NZCA 513
Decision Date: 17 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal, and the cross-appeal that accompanies it, arose out of a proceeding in the High Court in which Saxmere and its associates claimed that the Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (the Board) had breached statutory obligations owed to them and was liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and in negligence. The Board denied the claims and appealed to this Court. The Court of Appeal had previously heard the appeal and dismissed it. That decision was subsequently quashed and the matter remitted for rehearing by a new panel of judges. The Board appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that the High Court was wrong to have found any liability on its part. The respondents cross-appealed, broadly on the footing that the High Court findings as to liability had not gone far enough. The Court of Appeal allowed the Board's appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. The declarations made in the High Court were quashed. The finding that the Board was liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and in negligence was quashed. The finding that the respondents were entitled to costs in the High Court was quashed. The costs in the High Court were remitted to that Court for consideration in light of this Court’s judgment. In respect of costs in this Court, the respondents must pay to the appellant costs for a complex appeal on a 2B basis with usual disbursements. The respondents’ liability is joint and several.

Orders