James Farmer

LEGAL COMMENTARY

Random Legal Thoughts While on a Post-Covid Lockdown European Trip

Monday, October 31, 2022

If nothing else, the last 3 years of a Covid-infected world have forced us to face new living and working conditions and severely inhibited our ability to travel abroad.  Enforced working from home during lockdowns and virtual Court hearings had their novelty value and there are some who would be happy never to go back to an office and (possibly) some Judges or Justice officials who would see the virtual hearing as a welcome step towards dispensing with oral hearings altogether with “Judgment on the papers” as an infinitely more efficient (and less costly) form of decision-making.

The retorts are obvious.   Zoom is no substitute for the intellectual and social stimulation of working with colleagues on a daily basis.  The interchange and debate and discussion between Judge and counsel and the cross-examination of witnesses in an open, public Courtroom illuminates the strengths and weaknesses of written submissions and written briefs and thus improves the quality of Judicial decision-making.

An important feature of the legal scene, which was severely thwarted by Covid, is the holding of Conferences at which attendees are exposed to the latest thinking in important areas of legal development presented by experts as well as social inter-action with other lawyers – in the case of international conferences lawyers from around the world.

The annual conferences held by the New Zealand Bar Association were a victim of Covid until this last September when a welcome return was made.  Unfortunately for me, its postponement from earlier in the year because of further Covid regulatory restrictions prevented my attendance as I had already committed to a trip to England and Continental Europe in September.  However, I was able to attend another legal gathering that I had enjoyed in the past and which was now resumed in Florence, namely the IBA Competition and Antitrust law Conference.  I did also receive second-hand reports of the NZ Bar Association conference.  

One reported presentation from the NZBA Conference and a separate issue that was much debated at the IBA Conference did encourage me to think again about the great issues of legal and constitutional significance that transcend the problems of legal practice that we grapple with daily for clients.  

Of further interest (and concern) to all lawyers, no matter what their area of legal practice, also has to be the Supreme Court Judgment in the Peter Ellis case ([2022] NZSC 115), revealing a serious miscarriage of Justice (accurately highlighted 20 years ago by Lynley Hood in her work “A City Obsessed”.  The Ellis Judgment followed closely on the heels of the agreed quashing by the Supreme Court of the conviction of Alan Hall who spent 19 years in jail because the prosecution had concealed evidence that could have exonerated him.  Taken together, they confirm my suspicions (as an admitted outsider to the criminal justice system) that the lamentable description of criminal justice in the United Kingdom in “The Secret Barrister” (published 2018) may well have parallels in New Zealand.

That is for another day.  Let me return to the NZBA and IBA Conferences.

It was reported to me that a Crown lawyer lamented the numerous legal challenges that were made to the restrictions imposed by Covid regulations – beginning with Andrew Borrowdale’s successful claim that the initial period of the first lockdown was unlawful and culminating in the successful challenge by Grounded Kiwis to the appalling lottery system by which applications by returning New Zealand residents were determined.  What was reportedly said was to the effect that lawyers, at a time of national crisis, should accept and trust that the Government is doing right.

It is a fair proposition that, in times of national crisis, the Courts should be astute to recognise the objects and purpose of regulatory measures that are introduced to deal with that crisis but that does not condone giving words a meaning that they do not ordinarily and naturally have in order to support legislation that overrides established rights and liberties.   The point was made by Pollock CB as long ago as 1850 in Bowditch v. Balchin, 5 Ex.378 and approved since by Lord Wright in the House of Lords ([1941] AC 378, 393), a war time case, and then by Lord Atkin, in a dissenting Judgment in another war time case, Liversidge v. Anderson [1942] AC 206, 244: “In a case in which the liberty of the subject is concerned, we cannot go beyond the natural construction of the statute”.  Lord Atkin then famously added: 

“In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent.  They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty on which the recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.  In this case I have listened to arguments which might have been addressed acceptably to the Court of King’s Bench in the time of Charles I.”

In my view, these are words that should continue to inspire lawyers, including future generations, and underlie their commitment to the Rule of Law.  Appeals to national unity are fine but those making the appeal are not surely entitled to demand blind and accepting trust that they will not assume exceptional powers in a manner that does not respect the traditional values and principles that our legal system is based on, as enshrined in particular in the Bill of Rights Act.

I turn next to the IBA Antitrust and Competition Law Conference in Florence.  Nice place for a conference obviously.  These conferences tend to be very European-centric, which is to say focused on regulatory edicts from the European Commission rather than on general principles of antitrust law which we have inherited from the United States in our current Commerce Act – that is, prohibitions on the use of market power for anti-competitive purposes and on contracts, arrangements and understandings that have anti-competitive purposes or effects.  Nevertheless, the underlying goals are similar.

The origins of modern US antitrust law are to be found in the Sherman Act 1890, which makes it unlawful to monopolise or attempt to monopolise or conspire to monopolise any part of trade or commerce.  It is said that the Act was the result of a concern at the aggregation of market power which by itself was thought to preclude competition.  However, the Act – certainly as interpreted by the Courts – draws a distinction between the mere possession of monopoly power that may be the result of a superior product, business acumen or innovation and monopoly power that is accompanied by anticompetitive conduct that excludes competition and enables the firm to raise prices (or reduce product quality) above those that it could charge in a competitive market.  That distinction also exists in New Zealand as a consequence of the decision of the High Court (affirmed by the Privy Council) in Telecom v. Clear Communications (1994) 6 TCLR 138, a decision that was in effect reversed by the legislature in the telecommunications industry by the Telecommunications Act 2001, Schedule 1, Part 1, 1-2.

The ultimate goals of antitrust law have remained controversial since the Sherman Act was enacted.  At different times, the protection of small business was seen as a legitimate goal but that was rejected in part by the influence of the Chicago School of Economics whose view was that, to reward efficiency and innovation and to ensure consumer welfare, market behaviour rather than market structure should be the focus of antitrust law.  In general, that view has prevailed in American Courts but in the last few years, there has arisen a school of thought – variously referred to as Hipster Antitrust or the New Brandeis movement -  that courts and regulatory agencies should reject the consumer welfare standard in favour of a much broader public interest test that would require consideration of a variety of social and political goals, including income inequality and unemployment.  Brandeis was a former US Supreme Court Judge who described high economic concentration as “the Curse of Bigness” and who believed monopolies were inherently harmful to welfare of workers and business innovation.  He famously said:  “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

While criticized strongly by many, the attempts to change the philosophy of antitrust law cannot be ignored.  Three of its main proponents were recently appointed by President Biden to two senior antitrust positions – Lina Khan as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Jonathan Kanter as assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Tim Wu as Special Assistant to the President for Competition and Technology policy.   It was no surprise therefore that most of the speakers at the IBA conference that I attended should debate the pros and cons of the consumer welfare standard as the foundation of competition law and economics.  Most supported the maintenance of that standard.

In New Zealand too, bigness and wealth concentration have received much attention of late.  The supermarket duopoly has led to a Commerce Commission investigation and report with ad hoc measures intended to reduce their market domination – measures that few think are likely to be effective.  It is ironic that the Privy Council 20 years ago upheld the Commission’s clearance that allowed Progressive Enterprises (Countdown) to acquire the then third supermarket chain (Woolworths) (Foodstuffs v. Commerce Commission [2004] 1 NZLR 145).  Foodstuffs (for whom I acted in the litigation) successfully challenged that clearance in the High Court and Court of Appeal but the Privy Council allowed Progressive to argue a point previously abandoned in the High Court and then allowed the appeal.   As is said, what goes around, comes around.
Section 36 of the Commerce Act, which prohibits the use of market power for an anti-competitive purpose but which otherwise does not preclude firms with market power from profiting from that power, has been the subject of much comment to the effect that it is too narrowly based and should be expanded to prohibit the use of market power that has anti-competitive effects.  The Hipster/Brandeis movement, with its distaste for concentrated wealth, goes far beyond that by adopting an ill-defined public interest standard – a return to the approach taken in New Zealand by the earlier 1975 Commerce Act which provided in section 73 that “regard shall be had to any economic or other effects which any … monopoly, oligopoly, circumstances, aggregation proposal, merger, or takeover has or is likely to have on the well-being of the people of New Zealand”.  Hmm….
Jim Farmer 
31 October 2022

Recent Posts

  1. Is there any hope for the next America's Cup being held in Auckland? 13-Sep-2024
  2. Directors’ Duties to Creditors in an Insolvency Situation 22-Sep-2023
  3. Redundancy, Good faith and Employment Law 18-Aug-2023
  4. Is the America's Cup a poisoned chalice for New Zealand? 09-May-2023
  5. The Passing of Two Knights of the Realm - Sir Murray Halberg and Sir Ian Barker 07-Dec-2022
  6. Random Legal Thoughts While on a Post-Covid Lockdown European Trip 31-Oct-2022
  7. America's Cup Venue - Fact or Fiction Chris Goode 04-Apr-2022
  8. Covid and the New Zealand Rules Committee Proposed Reforms Chris Goode 24-Jan-2022
  9. A Chat On The Virtual Couch About My Legal Career Chris Goode 26-Nov-2021
  10. America’s Cup Home Defence – Requisition For Special General Meeting Of Members Of Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron To Discuss Venue For Next Defence Chris Goode 24-Nov-2021
  11. Pandemics 12-Nov-2021
  12. America's Cup - Just Do It and Positivity 20-Sep-2021
  13. September 11 - 20 Years On 09-Sep-2021
  14. Whither America's Cup? Chris Goode 22-Jun-2021
  15. Conducting Civil Appeals Chris Goode 07-Mar-2021
  16. David Barnes (27 April 1958 - 23 October 2020) - A Personal Note Chris Goode 02-Nov-2020
  17. Cannabis Bill Not the Right Reform Chris Goode 07-Oct-2020
  18. Whatever the result, is this the last time the America's Cup event is held in New Zealand? Chris Goode 14-Sep-2020
  19. Cannabis Legal Reform - Arguments For and Against Chris Goode 13-Aug-2020
  20. Will the Proposed Cannabis Legislation Achieve its "Overarching Objective" of Reducing the Harms Associated with Cannabis Use? Chris Goode 18-May-2020
  21. The Debate Continues - Virtual Hearings or Real Hearings Chris Goode 02-May-2020
  22. These Issues were all Predicted Pre-Covid-19 and 6 Years Ago Chris Goode 02-May-2020
  23. And here is a Report from Stuff of a Virtual Hearing this Week Chris Goode 30-Apr-2020
  24. More Correspondence on Covid-19 and the Courts Chris Goode 30-Apr-2020
  25. In Defence of Remote Technology - from Steve Keall Chris Goode 29-Apr-2020
  26. Court Hearings and Covid-19 - Part Two Chris Goode 29-Apr-2020
  27. Court Hearings and Covid-19 Chris Goode 28-Apr-2020
  28. Covid-19 and Executory Contracts: Will the Doctrine of Frustration Apply? Chris Goode 06-Apr-2020
  29. Race, Poverty and Education - Lessons from the UK learned while spending Christmas in London December 2019 Chris Goode 13-Jan-2020
  30. Witnesses in Civil Cases - the Consequences of Not Calling and of Not Cross-Examining - A Paper Presented to the Pacific Islands Lawyers Association, Auckland, 22 November 2019 Chris Goode 21-Nov-2019
  31. The Forthcoming Referendum on the Growing and Supply of Cannabis for Personal Recreational Use Chris Goode 19-Nov-2018
  32. Armistice Day and Its Sequel Chris Goode 13-Nov-2018
  33. An Easy Read of the Rule of Law in the World of Fiction Chris Goode 08-Aug-2018
  34. Bullying, Harassment and Gender Bias Chris Goode 22-May-2018
  35. Criticising Judges Chris Goode 07-May-2018
  36. America's Cup Part 3A Chris Goode 11-Dec-2017
  37. America's Cup Part 3 Chris Goode 04-Dec-2017
  38. Pro Bono Publico as an Aid to Living a Balanced Lifestyle Chris Goode 08-Nov-2017
  39. Terence Arnold Retires From the Supreme Court Bench Chris Goode 10-Apr-2017
  40. From Violence to Redemption Chris Goode 14-Mar-2017
  41. Drugs, Sports and Society Chris Goode 18-Oct-2016
  42. Are Our Law Schools Churning Out Too Many Lawyers? Chris Goode 25-Aug-2016
  43. Equiticorp 20 Years On Chris Goode 07-Jun-2016
  44. The Year in Retrospect Chris Goode 19-Jan-2016
  45. A Good Year for the Farmer Legal Family Chris Goode 30-Oct-2015
  46. Having a Balanced Life Style - Part 4 Chris Goode 21-Sep-2015
  47. A Balanced Life Style (Part 3), Prisoners' Voting Rights, Top Gun, 7000kms in a Corvette, John Maynard Keynes and Atticus Finch Chris Goode 05-Aug-2015
  48. Biographies Chris Goode 13-Apr-2015
  49. The Cost of Justice Chris Goode 13-Mar-2015
  50. The Increase in Unrepresented Litigants and Their Effect on the Judicial Process Chris Goode 11-Feb-2015
  51. Evidence - Notes of Presentation to Continuing Legal Education Seminar November 2014 Chris Goode 01-Dec-2014
  52. Corporate Governance and Directors' Liability Chris Goode 19-Aug-2014
  53. Paper Presented on 2 August 2014 at the Competition Law & Policy Institute of New Zealand 25th Annual Conference Chris Goode 05-Aug-2014
  54. Life in the Fast Lane Chris Goode 06-Jun-2014
  55. 2014 - Roaring Past Chris Goode 04-Jun-2014
  56. Commentary on Paper Delivered by Professor Andrew I Gavil at Commerce Commission Conference Chris Goode 18-Nov-2013
  57. America's Cup Wrap Up Chris Goode 04-Oct-2013
  58. Happiness, Living a Balanced Life and Legal Practice - Part II Chris Goode 15-Aug-2013
  59. America's Cup 2013 Chris Goode 01-Jul-2013
  60. Why the Rules of Evidence Matter in Civil Cases Chris Goode 11-Mar-2013
  61. The High Court in Review Chris Goode 07-Oct-2012
  62. "Criticism of Supreme Court needs to be put in context" as published in the New Zealand Herald 11 May 2012 Chris Goode 23-May-2012
  63. Recent Reform Reports Chris Goode 03-Apr-2012
  64. Happiness, Living a Balanced Life and Legal Practice Chris Goode 09-Jan-2012
  65. In Defence of the Supreme Court Chris Goode 12-Dec-2011
  66. LEGAL COMMENTARY HOW GOOD IS OUR SUPREME COURT? Chris Goode 16-Nov-2011
  67. Cross Examination Notes Chris Goode 11-Nov-2011
  68. Are the independence of the Judiciary and the Rule of Law under threat? Chris Goode 16-Oct-2011
  69. Commentary on my commentary on Morse Chris Goode 14-Sep-2011
  70. The passing of three leaders of the Bar Chris Goode 14-Sep-2011
  71. How good is our Supreme Court? Chris Goode 08-Aug-2011

Georgia Racing

Website Managed by Generate Design