New Zealand Carbon Farming Ltd v Mighty River Power Ltd

COURT OR TRIBUNAL

Court of Appeal of New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand

DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)

24/10/2014

LITIGATION TYPE

Corporate Accountability

SUBJECT MATTER

Carbon credits / offsets

REVIEW TYPE

Judicial review

SUMMARY

(Excerpt from judgment)

[6] This case concerns a dispute between two plaintiff companies, who are the owners of the Hawarden Forest in North Canterbury (“the forest”), and Mighty River Power Limited (“MRP”), an electricity generation, wholesaling and retailing company, over the interpretation and operation of an emissions reduction purchase agreement (“ERPA”) between them dated 12 January 2012, for the sale and purchase of NZUs.

(Lexis Catchwords & Digest)

Contract — Agreements — Interpretation — Meaning and application

Appeal against decision of New Zealand High Court. Appellants and respondent disputed about meaning and application of provisions in agreement executed which relate to sale by appellants to respondents of carbon credits to appellants. Appellants claimed obligation to sell different number of units than that stated in agreement in event of change in units allocated to appellants resulting from any change in accounting mechanism. Respondent raised two issues on cross-appeal, first concerned proper interpretation of cl 2.1 of agreement, and second scope of documents and information appellant obliged to provide to respondent in relation to delivery. Both appellants and respondent sought declarations about meaning and application of provisions of agreement. Established appellant ordered to pay respondent costs calculated as for standard appeal on Band A basis deducting 10 per cent from that amount and also for appellant to pay usual disbursements. Accordingly, New Zealand Court of Appeal dismissed both appeal and cross appeal. Appeal dismissed.

CASE DOCUMENTS

New Zealand Carbon Farming Ltd v Mighty River Power Ltd [2015] NZHC 1274
New Zealand Carbon Farming Ltd v Mighty River power Ltd [2015] NZCA 605

RELATED CASES

JUMP TO CASE: