News | Rural
21 Apr 2018 8:31
NZCity News
NZCity CalculatorReturn to NZCity

  • Start Page
  • Personalise
  • Sport
  • Weather
  • Finance
  • Shopping
  • Jobs
  • Horoscopes
  • Lotto Results
  • Photo Gallery
  • Site Gallery
  • TVNow
  • Dating
  • SearchNZ
  • NZSearch
  • Crime.co.nz
  • RugbyLeague
  • Make Home
  • About NZCity
  • Contact NZCity
  • Your Privacy
  • Advertising
  • Login
  • Join for Free

  •   Home > News > Rural

    Fonterra's Dira breach appeal rejected

    Fonterra breached the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act by imposing worse terms on farmers who previously supplied New Zealand Dairies, the Supreme Court said.


    Fonterra
    Fonterra

    Fonterra Cooperative breached the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (Dira) by imposing less favourable terms on farmers who previously supplied the failed New Zealand Dairies, the Supreme Court has found.

    In 2015, the High Court ruled Fonterra had breached Dira after buying the independent processor's plant out of receivership in 2012 and taking on its farmers, who supplied milk from farms in North Otago and South Canterbury.

    Fonterra made a deal with the farmers, agreeing to buy their milk under a "growth contract", rather than a fully share-backed supply.

    Under the growth contract, the farmers were entitled to 5 cents less per kilogram of milk solids than the contract milk price and bought 1000 Fonterra shares but couldn't become fully share-backed in their first year of supplying Fonterra.

    Fonterra appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, which rejected it in 2016 and this year to the Supreme Court.

    It was granted leave to appeal to the highest court on the question of whether the appeal court was correct to find the farmers counted as "new entrants".

    In a majority ruling, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Justices Ellen France and Mark O'Regan said the argument made by the farmers' lawyer David Goddard, QC, that Fonterra penalised the farmers to avoid bad optics with its existing suppliers had "not been shown to be wrong".

    Chief Justice Sian Elias and Justice Susan Glazebrook agreed the farmers counted as new entrants and that Fonterra had breached s106 of Dira.

    Justice Elias also said Fonterra hadn't proven the price it paid for the plant was inflated to cover the money owed by New Zealand Dairies to the farmers, as its lawyers argued.

    Dissenting, Justice William Young accepted Fonterra's argument the farmers were not share-backed suppliers, but instead contract suppliers, and s106 of Dira does not cover contract suppliers.

    The farmers' holding of 1000 shares was "nominal", Fonterra argued.


    NZN




    © 2018 NZN, NZCity


     Other Rural News
     12 Apr: Fonterra invests in new drinks plant
     11 Apr: Fonterra's 'asset beta' may be too low
     03 Apr: Fonterra milk collection hit by weather
     21 Mar: Fonterra posts $348m loss
     21 Mar: Whole milk powder defies GDT dip
     20 Mar: NZ shares down; Synlait, Fonterra fall
     09 Mar: Skim milk price spike sparks GDT probe
     Top Stories

    RUGBY RUGBY
    Tahs look to get Izzy back after Super bye More...


    BUSINESS BUSINESS
    NZ shares fall as MSCI changes debated More...



     Today's News

    International:
    Vietnamese teen's escape from the China trafficking trade that sold her mother 8:26

    Rugby League:
    Smith credits Jacks for Munster's NRL form 8:16

    Cricket:
    Henry stars for Kent in 'crazy' day 8:06

    Entertainment:
    Emily Ratajkowski loves being able to call her partner “husband” 8:01

    Rugby League:
    NRL backs controversial Slater try call 7:56

    Education:
    Dunedin students set for Hyde Street party 7:46

    Rugby:
    Tahs look to get Izzy back after Super bye 7:36

    Entertainment:
    Stefflon Don finds it hard to date, as boys find her “intimidating” 7:31

    Rugby:
    Add Kiwis to Super W: Queensland coach 7:26

    Motoring:
    One dead in Matamata wall crash 7:16


     News Search






    Power Search


    © 2018 New Zealand City Ltd