Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd v Clear Communications Ltd: 1995

(New Zealand) A trader is entitled, before he enters upon a line of conduct which is designed to affect his competitors, to know with some certainty whether or not what he proposes to do is lawful. The meaning and effect of section 36 of the 1986 Act is that use of a dominant position otherwise than for one of the proscribed purposes does not constitute a breach. Nor does the fact that a person has acted in order to achieve one of the proscribed purposes constitute a breach unless he has used his dominant position to achieve those purposes. The minority say that the purpose of section 36 is to prevent use of a dominant position for the purpose of stifling competition.


[1995] 1 NZLR 385


Commerce Act 1986 36(1)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCarter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd v The Commerce Commission PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) The company had been found guilty under the Act of abusing its dominant position. The appeal was restricted to whether the dominant position was being used in the way suggested. Would the company have introduced its price cuts if it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.199227