Mercury Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1994 |
| Date | 1994 |
| Year | 1994 |
| Court | Privy Council |
New Zealand - Judicial review - State enterprise - Termination by state enterprise of contractual arrangements for supply of electricity - Whether state enterprise amenable to judicial review - Whether decision reviewable - Whether state enterprise under statutory duty to continue arrangements -
The defendant, designated a state enterprise under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, was responsible for generating and distributing electricity throughout New Zealand to local electrical supply authorities. By a written agreement in 1987, and supplemental agreements, the defendant undertook to supply bulk electricity to the plaintiff supply authority on specified terms and at prices agreed until the end of March 1993. In March 1992 the defendant gave the plaintiff 12 months' notice of termination of the contractual arrangements, but nevertheless continued to supply the plaintiff, conceding that it was bound to do so at fair and reasonable prices. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming that it had no power to determine the contractual arrangements and pleading causes of action in contract, breach of statutory duty under section 4(1)(c)of the Act of 1986F1 and abuse of dominant position by a monopoly supplier of an essential commodity. In addition, pursuant to section 4(1) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972,F2 the plaintiff applied for judicial review of the defendant's decision to terminate the contractual arrangements. On the defendant's application that the non-contractual causes of action be struck out the judge struck out those relating to statutory duty and monopoly position but not the application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowing the defendant's cross-appeal struck out the application for judicial review.
On the plaintiff's appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, (1) that since the defendant, as a state enterprise, was a public body established by statute carrying on business in the interests of the public, and since its decisions made in the public interest might adversely affect the rights and liabilities of private individuals without affording them any redress, such decisions were in principle amenable to judicial review under section 4(1) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and under the common law (post, p. 526C–D).
But (2) dismissing the appeal, that since judicial review involved interference by the court with a decision made by a person or body empowered by law to reach that decision in the public interest a litigant could only invoke judicial review if he pleaded plausible allegations which, if proved at trial, would show that the decision had not been reached in accordance with law; that section 4(1) of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 imposed on the defendant the duty to pursue the principal objective of operating as a successful business and the Act authorised the defendant to enter into and determine contracts in its discretion, and the general and vague allegations of impropriety in the pleadings, unsupported by any reference to any fact, were insufficient to ground a claim that the defendant had acted unreasonably or in bad faith or for improper or ulterior motives in deciding to terminate its contractual arrangements with the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek judicial review of that decision; that, furthermore, the Act of 1986 did not impose a statutory duty on the defendant to continue those arrangements, and the claim concerning abuse of position by a monopoly supplier, if actionable, was unsupported since lawful termination of a contract was not an abuse; and that, accordingly, all the causes of action other than those alleging breach of contract had properly been struck out (post, pp. 526D–E, 528B–C, F–H, 529A, E–F).
Per curiam. It does not seem likely that a decision by a state enterprise to enter into or determine a commercial contract to supply goods or services will ever be the subject of judicial review in the absence of fraud, corruption or bad faith (post, p. 529A–B).
Quaere. Whether in default of agreement between the parties a fair and reasonable price for bulk electricity provided by the defendant to the plaintiff can ultimately be determined by the court (post, p. 525C–D).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [
Reg. v. Independent Television Commission, Ex parte TSW Broadcasting Ltd., The Times, 30 March 1992,
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Allnutt v. Inglis (
Burt v. Governor-General [
Clutha Leathers Ltd. (in rec.) v. Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. (
Davy v. Spelthorne Borough Council [
Erebus Royal Commission, In re; Air New Zealand Ltd. v. Mahon (No. 2) [
Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc. v. New Zealand Post Ltd. (unreported), 1 December 1992; CP No. 661/92, New Zealand
Foster v. British Gas Plc. [
New Zealand Maori Council v. Attorney-General [
New Zealand Maori Council v. Attorney-General of New Zealand [
New Zealand Optical Ltd. (in rec.) v. Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. (
New Zealand Stock Exchange v. Listed Companies Association Inc. [
Peters v. Collinge [
Reg. v. Lord Chancellor, Ex parte Hibbit and Saunders, The Times, 12 March 1993
Reg. v. National Coal Board, Ex parte National Union of Mineworkers [
Reg. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex parte Datafin Plc. [
Reg. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Ex parte Chetnik Developments Ltd. [
Singh v. Refugee Status Appeals Authority (unreported), 22 October 1993; M 1224/93, New Zealand
South Pacific Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd. [
South Taranaki Electric-Power Board v. Patea Borough [
Southern Ocean Trawlers Ltd. v. Director-General of Agriculture and Fisheries [
State Advances Superintendent v. Auckland City Corporation and the One Tree Hill Borough [
Te Ringa Manu Mihaka v. Attorney-General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Next Level Engineering Ltd Claimant v Attorney General First Defendant Antigua Public Utilities Authority Second Defendant Wilmoth Daniel, Minister Responsible for Public Utilities Third Defendant Antigua Power Company Ltd Fourth Defendant [ECSC]
...Wade & Forsyth, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, (9 th ed) p. 692 2 See for example: Mercury Energy Limited v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand [1994] 1 WLR 521 3 Op cit at p. 372 4 Affidavit says "2060" 5 Being 11 th April 2006 as stated at paragraph 20. 6 See: Marks v. Minister of Home Affairs [1......
-
Treasury Holdings and Others v National Asset Management Agency and Others
...RIDING) CO COUNCIL 2005 2 IR 483 2005 2 ILRM 168 2005/47/9846 2005 IESC 18 MERCURY ENERGY LTD v ELECTRICITY CORP OF NEW ZEALAND LTD 1994 1 WLR 521 R (BIRMINGHAM & SOLIHULL TAXI ASSOCIATION) v BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2009 AER (D) 275 (JUL) 2009 EWHC 1913 (ADMIN) R (MOLINARO) v KENS......
-
Joanna Trafford v Blackpool Borough Council
...to make representations, so that the claim failed. 43 Next in time is the decision of the Privy Council in Mercury Energy Ltd—v—Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 521. Lord Templeman, giving the judgment of the Privy Council, said, at 529B: "It does not seem to me likel......
-
R and Others v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
...different. There were no relevant legislative provisions or guidance as to the way the Health Authority should approach the issue. The Mercury Energy case concerned a decision by a state enterprise to terminate a contract for the supply of electricity. There was no legislative obligation re......
-
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC LAW: CHALLENGING THE PRECONCEPTIONS OF A TROUBLED TAXONOMY.
...to consider the public interest can, however, affect reviewability: Mercury Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 521; MBA Land Holdings Pty Ltd v Gungahlin Development Authority (2000) 206 FLR (135) This can be understood in relation to other actors, some of ......