Lawyers have clashed over a second appeal by Stuff and NZME over a rejection of their merger, with the Commerce Commission's team calling it undisciplined and inappropriate.
The media companies have filed a follow-up appeal running parallel to the first at the High Court at Wellington this week.
The primary appeal is on the factual and legal errors they say the commission made in rejecting their merger in May.
The second is about the process the regulator used to reach its decision, which they argue didn't abide by principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Justice Robert Dobson had suggested the second appeal be heard after the commission's lawyers had finished their arguments on the first appeal, so lay person Professor Martin Richardson, who is assisting him, would be spared the arguments on procedural law.
The media company's lawyer, David Goddard, QC, accepted this, but James Farmer, QC, representing the commission, on Wednesday said there was an "unhappy history around the process allegations which have been made".
He said the scope of the case contracting and broadening over time, and he wanted as much time as possible to consider the commission's response.
"It's been very much a moveable feast, and we're rather unhappy at the prospect of that feast moving yet again when we hear the presentation of oral submissions to this court," Mr Farmer said.
"Equally, we're not totally convinced there might not be some inter-relationship between the two [appeals]."
The judge said the case "has certainly been a concertina in its scope" and he would discuss the matter with Professor Richardson and come back to the lawyers.
In regards to the second appeal, the media lawyers said the commission placed too much reliance on interviews of third parties known to be opposed to the proposed merger.
The commissions's lawyers said there was no breach of procedural fairness, and the current appeal could cure any prejudice.
They also said in many cases, the alleged deficiencies were known about at the time but the appellants didn't object to them.
The commission also indicated it wanted to recover costs from the media companies over the second appeal, which it said "lacked appropriate discipline and put it to considerable unnecessary expense".
SHARE ME