KEY POINTS:
A legal principle means companies unfairly cutting off water or electricity supplies could be challenged in court, a legal expert says.
Dr Kenneth Palmer, an associate law professor at Auckland University, said the power that kept Folole Muliaga's oxygen machine going should never have been disconnected under the doctrine of prime necessity, as it was an essential service.
Mrs Muliaga died within three hours of power to the home being cut on Tuesday last week.
Government guidelines recommend - but do not require - that electricity suppliers tell struggling customers they are entitled to help.
But the family - or any others in similar circumstances - could challenge the disconnection in court, Professor Palmer said.
"The spirit of the doctrine is that the supply should not be discontinued unless there is a clear refusal to pay the reasonable price, and late payment is not the same as refusal.
"It's not the case that the people were refusing to pay the bill. They were paying in arrears. It's certainly not a case where they wanted something for nothing," he said.
How a court would decide the case would depend on the facts, taking into account the warning notices from the supplier.
"But in my view the power should not have been cut in that situation, having regard to this principle," Professor Palmer said. "The key is whether the customer is willing to pay the reasonable charge, and this may require active consultation by the supplier, rather than just sending out a warning notice."
The Muliagas' lawyer, Olinda Woodroffe, said she was aware of the doctrine and was considering legal action under "all legal avenues, including that doctrine".
It emerged yesterday that the family's supplier, Mercury Energy, failed to tell the family of Government help available, despite sending warning notices over seven years.
Constitutional law expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer said although the legal principle was well known, using it before a court would be shrouded in uncertainty. "It's not an easy doctrine to apply."
