Access to essential facilities under section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986: Lessons from Australian competition law

Brenda Marshall, Rachel Mulheron

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The adequacy of New Zealand's misuse of market power provision to regulate access to 'essential facilities' was investigated as part of the 1989 review of the Commerce Act 1986 (NZ). In a dramatically divergent outcome to that recommended by Australia's Hilmer Committee in 1993, New Zealand's Ministry of Commerce concluded that '[r]eliance on general competition law is the Government's favoured approach for guaranteeing access to essential facilities. 'It was made clear, however, that industry-specific regulation would be introduced to supplement the Commerce Act, if necessary. Accordingly, the denial of access to an essential facility in New Zealand -whether manifest from an outright denial or by offering to provide access on terms and conditions that are impractical or uneconomic - is commonly treated as a type of refusal to supply under s 36 Commerce Act. However, the notion that s 36 might incorporate an essential facilities doctrine based on that developed in the United States was specifically rejected by the New Zealand High Court in Union Shipping New Zealand v Port Nelson Ltd. In declining to import the doctrine into New Zealand competition law, the Court warned that a 'wrong turning at this point may prove painfully difficult to correct'. New Zealand essential facilities cases are required to be determined, therefore, strictly in accordance with the terms of s 36
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)248-267
Number of pages20
JournalThe Canterbury Law Review
Volume9
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

commerce
New Zealand
act
Law
doctrine
market power
shipping
ministry
supplement
import
regulation
industry

Cite this

@article{b6158b4cfd76497c84991029534136cd,
title = "Access to essential facilities under section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986: Lessons from Australian competition law",
abstract = "The adequacy of New Zealand's misuse of market power provision to regulate access to 'essential facilities' was investigated as part of the 1989 review of the Commerce Act 1986 (NZ). In a dramatically divergent outcome to that recommended by Australia's Hilmer Committee in 1993, New Zealand's Ministry of Commerce concluded that '[r]eliance on general competition law is the Government's favoured approach for guaranteeing access to essential facilities. 'It was made clear, however, that industry-specific regulation would be introduced to supplement the Commerce Act, if necessary. Accordingly, the denial of access to an essential facility in New Zealand -whether manifest from an outright denial or by offering to provide access on terms and conditions that are impractical or uneconomic - is commonly treated as a type of refusal to supply under s 36 Commerce Act. However, the notion that s 36 might incorporate an essential facilities doctrine based on that developed in the United States was specifically rejected by the New Zealand High Court in Union Shipping New Zealand v Port Nelson Ltd. In declining to import the doctrine into New Zealand competition law, the Court warned that a 'wrong turning at this point may prove painfully difficult to correct'. New Zealand essential facilities cases are required to be determined, therefore, strictly in accordance with the terms of s 36",
author = "Brenda Marshall and Rachel Mulheron",
year = "2003",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "248--267",
journal = "The Canterbury Law Review",
issn = "0112-0581",
number = "2",

}

Access to essential facilities under section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 : Lessons from Australian competition law. / Marshall, Brenda; Mulheron, Rachel.

In: The Canterbury Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2003, p. 248-267.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Access to essential facilities under section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986

T2 - Lessons from Australian competition law

AU - Marshall, Brenda

AU - Mulheron, Rachel

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - The adequacy of New Zealand's misuse of market power provision to regulate access to 'essential facilities' was investigated as part of the 1989 review of the Commerce Act 1986 (NZ). In a dramatically divergent outcome to that recommended by Australia's Hilmer Committee in 1993, New Zealand's Ministry of Commerce concluded that '[r]eliance on general competition law is the Government's favoured approach for guaranteeing access to essential facilities. 'It was made clear, however, that industry-specific regulation would be introduced to supplement the Commerce Act, if necessary. Accordingly, the denial of access to an essential facility in New Zealand -whether manifest from an outright denial or by offering to provide access on terms and conditions that are impractical or uneconomic - is commonly treated as a type of refusal to supply under s 36 Commerce Act. However, the notion that s 36 might incorporate an essential facilities doctrine based on that developed in the United States was specifically rejected by the New Zealand High Court in Union Shipping New Zealand v Port Nelson Ltd. In declining to import the doctrine into New Zealand competition law, the Court warned that a 'wrong turning at this point may prove painfully difficult to correct'. New Zealand essential facilities cases are required to be determined, therefore, strictly in accordance with the terms of s 36

AB - The adequacy of New Zealand's misuse of market power provision to regulate access to 'essential facilities' was investigated as part of the 1989 review of the Commerce Act 1986 (NZ). In a dramatically divergent outcome to that recommended by Australia's Hilmer Committee in 1993, New Zealand's Ministry of Commerce concluded that '[r]eliance on general competition law is the Government's favoured approach for guaranteeing access to essential facilities. 'It was made clear, however, that industry-specific regulation would be introduced to supplement the Commerce Act, if necessary. Accordingly, the denial of access to an essential facility in New Zealand -whether manifest from an outright denial or by offering to provide access on terms and conditions that are impractical or uneconomic - is commonly treated as a type of refusal to supply under s 36 Commerce Act. However, the notion that s 36 might incorporate an essential facilities doctrine based on that developed in the United States was specifically rejected by the New Zealand High Court in Union Shipping New Zealand v Port Nelson Ltd. In declining to import the doctrine into New Zealand competition law, the Court warned that a 'wrong turning at this point may prove painfully difficult to correct'. New Zealand essential facilities cases are required to be determined, therefore, strictly in accordance with the terms of s 36

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 248

EP - 267

JO - The Canterbury Law Review

JF - The Canterbury Law Review

SN - 0112-0581

IS - 2

ER -