Financial report analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4250 words

Financial report analysis - Essay Example Origin made it generation capacity more than doubled by expanding or adding power plants in 2010. The capacity was 704 MW in the financial year of 2009; it was increased to 1620 MW in 2010. The company’s performance improved even its retail sector where a profit of $90 million to $565 million was achieved. The sale of company’s solar systems provided further profit to the company. Despite all above factors company reported a substantial decrease in Net Profit after tax as it was calculated 91% lower than the previous fiscal year, i.e. in 2009. The statuary profit was decreased to $612 million in comparison with $6941 million of the previous year. In this loss the dilution of Origin’s interest in Australia Pacific LNG alone comprised of $6411 million to that period while the net benefit in this number of items being only $27 in this year. The earnings per share for the period hence decreased to a nominal 69 cps (cents per share) from the 791 cps of last year. A fi nal dividend of 25 cents per share was paid to its shareholders in the month of September, 2010. The company expanded its presence in south East Asia to the portfolio of oil and gas drilling. This exercise has been totally unprofitable for the company as excluding this exercise company’s underlying profit would have been up by 15% or 609 million. Apart from that Underlying Earning per Share noticed a growth of 10% as it increased to 66.6 cent per share from 60.5 cent per share, the average weighted capital base being 878 million. The main cause of such loss in company’s account will definitely be amounted because of the dilution exercise processed with the Australia Pacific LNG which definitely was a bad decision in favour of the company. (Origin Energy, 2011, Annual report) Introduction In February 2000 the Australian Conglomerate Boral Limited was demerged and its energy segment was removed from it to form a new company Origin Energy. This was done to separate the en ergy business from building and construction business. In the year 200 and 2001 the companied grew to a substantial size by acquiring Electricity retailers Powercor and Citypower. Till 2004 the company has further acquired 50% holding in Kupe Gas Field and 51.4% holding in Edison Mission Energy. By The month of March this year the company has bought the retail division of Country Energy and Integral Energy in $3250 million from the Govt. of New South Wales The principal activities of Origin Energy are in the fields of Oil, Gas and Electricity. The company owns Oil and Gas reserves in South Australia and Queensland. Outside the Australia also the company is intended to develop Kupe Gas Field in New Zealand. In Retail sector the company serves over three million customers’ gas or electricity in New Zealand, Australia and in the south pacific. In generation business the company generates electricity mainly natural gas. None of the coal fired power plant is owned by the company. In fields of Gas transportation and distributing Origin Energy had shareholding of 17% in Envesta Limited and 33% in SEAGas pipeline and these shareholdings were sold to APA group in 2007. The company policy of producing energy from renewable sources is well appreciated. The company is highly active in this field and have spent years of research in this field. The company does not own any equity in wind farms

Administrative Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Administrative Law - Case Study Example This principle, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, requires William to establish that the Ministry's decision is William however is seeking to rely on a previous policy and to be treated as an exception to the existing, published policy. The question is whether he has a substantive right to do so, given that decision makers have the right to change their minds and have a duty to make unfettered decisions.4The doctrine of legitimate expectation5 recognizes that occasionally when a public body makes an unfettered decision injustice is done to a citizen. A citizen will have a legitimate expectation where an official statement or other conduct of a public body has led to a reasonable belief that the citizen will be able to claim a benefit or advantage and it would be unfair for the public body to deprive the citizen of that benefit or advantage. Examples include where an official letter stated that an interview would be given before deportation6 and where an official circular stated t hat adoptions from abroad would be allowed in certain circumstances.7 The fact that the compensation scheme came into being by the government exercising its prerogative powers will not preclude the court examining the justicability of the subject matter.8 In Council for Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1984]9 their Lordships held that the trade unionists had a legitimate expectation that they would be consulted based on regular consultation on conditions of service in the past until they were given reasons for its withdrawal and the opportunity to comment. In R v. North and East Devon Health Authorities Ex p Coughlan [2000] the local health authority reneged on a promise that the claimant would have a home for life. The Court of Appeal held that the statement was clear and unambiguous and that it was reasonable for the claimant to rely on it. On the basis of the reported decisions William will certainly have sufficient interest to apply for judicial review. Whether the court will bind the Ministry to honour its earlier policy on his behalf is a matter for the court's discretion. The court has to weigh the consequences of allowing William's expectations to be filled against the unlawful fettering of the Ministry's discretion and frustration of Parliament's clear intention not to award compensation. He will certainly be entitled to a fair hearing and to be given reasons why he is to be denied the benefit. The court will only insist that the Ministry honour his expectation if there is 'some overriding public interest which justifies a departure'10 Although William is required to state the remedy(ies) sought in his initial application for judicial review, all remedies are discretionary in judicial review, and there is no guarantee that he will be granted any remedy even if he is successful. Technically speaking the court can order any one or more of 6 orders in a judicial review application: a quashing order, a mandatory order, a prohibitive order, an injunction, a declaration and damages. In practice however a legitimate expectation does not give an absolute right to a remedy - only a heightened claim to the benefit or advantage.11 Generally the most