News | Rural
23 Jan 2018 7:08
NZCity News
NZCity CalculatorReturn to NZCity

  • Start Page
  • Personalise
  • Days of Xmas
  • Sport
  • Weather
  • Finance
  • Shopping
  • Jobs
  • Horoscopes
  • Lotto Results
  • Photo Gallery
  • Site Gallery
  • TVNow
  • Dating
  • SearchNZ
  • NZSearch
  • 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 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.


    © 2018 NZN, NZCity

     Other Rural News
     22 Jan: NZ shares up as Ryman gains, Fonterra dips
     20 Jan: Genetics and breeding experts coming to NZ
     17 Jan: Dairy prices up amid supply concern
     15 Jan: NZ shares down as Pushpay, Fonterra drop
     04 Jan: Milk prices rise at GDT auction
     03 Jan: Dairy prices up amid lower supply outlook
     29 Dec: Fonterra cuts NZ milk production forecast
     Top Stories

    Liam Messam signs for Toulon More...

    Chch council gets Havelock response update More...

     Today's News

    Chch council gets Havelock response update 6:06

    Munro steers NZ to T20 win over Pakistan 21:56

    One dead in Bay of Plenty road crash 21:16

    Law and Order:
    Australian filmmaker accused of spying in Cambodia moved to cell with 140 prisoners 21:06

    Screen Actors Guild awards: The big winners and why the awards were a little different this year 19:46

    Why we should forget losing weight and focus on healthy habits 19:27

    Law and Order:
    Police stay vigilant over Panmure brawls 18:56

    US shutdown: White House changes voicemail to say Democrats 'holding Government hostage' 18:26

    NZ shares up as Ryman gains, Fonterra dips 18:06

    Rohingya resist push to return amid Bangladesh, Myanmar repatriation deal 17:46

     News Search

    Power Search

    © 2018 New Zealand City Ltd