Government decides against payment to stock agent
A Northland stock and station agent who argued his business was affected by the merger of Wrightson Ltd and Dalgety Ltd 24 years ago is not getting any compensation from the government.John Andrew Dickson, whose business went into liquidation in 1993, pet
A Northland stock and station agent who argued his business was affected by the merger of Wrightson Ltd and Dalgety Ltd 24 years ago is not getting any compensation from the government.
John Andrew Dickson, whose business went into liquidation in 1993, petitioned Parliament three times requesting compensation for loss of profits as a result of alleged failures of the Commerce Commission, examiner of commercial practices and the secretary of Commerce to enforce conditions of the merger of Wrightson Dalgety, which was cleared by the commission in 1986.
The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry at the request of Parliament's commerce committee. This found no causal connection between the loss suffered by Mr Dickson and any failure by the commission. The committee agreed with this but found that unhelpful communication by the commission contributed to Mr Dickson's loss of opportunity to pursue legal action against Wrightson and the Crown should accept moral responsibility for this.
It recommended the government consider an ex gratia payment to Mr Dickson.
The government then said it would seek independent legal advice before deciding on the issue of an ex gratia payment.
Commerce Minister Simon Power said today that there would be no ex gratia payment.
He said this decision was made after an independent report by Peter McKenzie QC.
"Mr McKenzie found that though the Commerce Commission might have failed in one aspect of this matter, that failure was not exceptional. Therefore, the government does not think an ex gratia payment would be appropriate."
Labour party commerce spokeswoman Lianne Dalziel said she was appalled by the decision. Mr Dickson deserved better treatment from the government, which had ignored the select committee.
In 1992 the commission advised Mr Dickson that the enforceability of the conditions of the merger were "questionable" due to differences between the Commerce Act 1975, under which the merger application had been lodged and decided, and the new Commerce Act 1986.
The commission had investigated Mr Dickson's anti-competitive concerns under the 1986 Act.
© All content copyright NBR. Do not reproduce in any form without permission, even if you have a paid subscription.