New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

  • 17 Jan 2024

    LOBB v WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LtD [2024] NZHC 16

    Citation
    [2024] NZHC 16
    Court
    High Court

    The Court ordered Westpac to provide a more explicit pleading limited to the timeline: when its review began and when the CAANZ package was identified as affected, when the association package issue was identified and when Westpac identified that the 92 Account was affected, and when Westpac notified the FMA; the remainder of the applicant's requests for further particulars and particular discovery were dismissed as disproportionate, irrelevant to pleaded issues, or answered by Westpac's discovery and affidavits.

    • Further and better particulars
    • Particular discovery
    • Remediation and regulatory notification
    • Mortgagee sale
    • Rectification
    • Non est factum

  • 22 Dec 2023

    CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3886

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3886
    Court
    High Court

    A stay of execution pending the Court of Appeal was granted because the balance of convenience justified preserving the status quo during the appeal, subject to specific conditions preventing the defendants from increasing secured debt over the relevant property interests to avoid prejudice to the plaintiff.

    • Stay of execution
    • Conditions of stay
    • Asset preservation
    • Post-judgment security

  • 22 Dec 2023

    GUO v HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS [2023] NZHC 3883

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3883
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the Tribunal acted within its statutory powers and applied the correct legal tests; the applicant failed to discharge the burden to establish grounds to go behind PwC's affidavit of documents under r 8.19; PwC provided credible, cogent evidence explaining why certain electronic documents were irretrievable; there was no error of law, procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Tribunal's decision, and the judicial review application was dismissed.

    • Discovery orders
    • Affidavit of documents
    • Legal professional privilege
    • Judicial review standard of review
    • Procedural fairness
    • Privacy act requests

  • 21 Dec 2023

    LU TRUSTEE LTD v PARKLANE INFRASTRUCT LTD (IN LIQ) [2023] NZHC 3848

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3848
    Court
    High Court

    The presumption that costs follow discontinuance under r15.23 was displaced because the plaintiffs effectively succeeded: the defendant was placed into liquidation by shareholders before the first call making the proceedings unnecessary; accordingly the defendant was ordered to pay costs on a 2B basis and disbursements totaling NZD 5,405.55.

    • Liquidation
    • Discontinuance
    • Statutory demand
    • Costs assessment
    • High court rules r15.23

  • 21 Dec 2023

    SAVAGE GARAGE NZ LTD v PERAMUNE [2023] NZHC 3864

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3864
    Court
    High Court

    There was a genuine and substantial dispute about the existence and terms of the debt that could not be resolved in statutory demand proceedings; Peramune was put on notice by Savage Garage on 16 June 2023 and nevertheless persisted with the statutory demand and opposition to the set-aside application, so increased costs were justified under r14.6 of the High Court Rules; accordingly Peramune was ordered to pay Savage Garage increased costs and disbursements of $18,182.42.

    • Statutory demand
    • Increased costs
    • Abuse of process
    • Substantial dispute
    • High court rules r14.6

  • 21 Dec 2023

    WATERWORLD LIMITED v TAUPO WAKE PARK LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3859

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3859
    Court
    High Court

    Application for interim injunction refused because, although there was a barely tenable serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favored respondents: claimant's restraint of trade had limited apparent merit, applicant had not demonstrated likely irreparable harm (brand dilution or safety risks) that could not be addressed by regulatory oversight or quantified damages, and the applicant failed to supply an adequate undertaking as to damages.

    • Licence agreement
    • Equipment lease
    • Non-compete clause
    • Interim injunction
    • Balance of convenience
    • Serious question to be tried

  • 21 Dec 2023

    DEM HOME LTD v NEW GATE LTD [2023] NZHC 3873

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3873
    Court
    High Court

    Section 23(2)(a)(ii) of the CCA creates a presumption that a successful payee is entitled to recover actual and reasonable costs of recovery; the court must ensure those costs are reasonable and proportionate. Applying that principle the claimed costs were reasonable and not disproportionate to the $240,000 dispute, so Dem Home was ordered to pay New Gate $32,062.70 in actual costs and $1,466.73 in disbursements.

    • Statutory demand
    • Costs recovery
    • Section 23 cca
    • Actual and reasonable costs
    • Scale costs
    • Disbursements

  • 21 Dec 2023

    MULHOLLAND v MULHOLLAND [2023] NZHC 3853

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3853
    Court
    High Court

    Although the application was for leave rather than summary judgment, the leave application was analogous to a summary judgment application because the failure related to assessment of whether merits could be determined summarily; given the overlap with the substantive issues and the difficulty of assessing entitlement at this stage there was a special reason under r 14.8(1) to reserve costs so that costs can reflect the merits determined at trial; the earlier indication that 2B costs were appropriate was recorded for the trial judge but costs are reserved.

    • Interlocutory costs
    • Summary judgment
    • Leave to bring summary judgment
    • Reservation of costs
    • Directors' duties
    • Unfairly prejudicial conduct s175 companies act 1993

  • 21 Dec 2023

    GIGGLE HQ LTD v GIGGLE LTD [2023] NZHC 3846

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3846
    Court
    High Court

    Because the respondent withdrew the statutory demand without condition before filing opposition or evidence, requiring the applicant to discontinue the originating application, it was just to award costs to the applicant; the r 15.23 presumption was displaced by the respondent's withdrawal and costs were awarded on a 2B basis plus disbursements.

    • Statutory demand
    • Setting aside
    • Discontinuance
    • High court rules r 15.23

  • 21 Dec 2023

    BAKER v BAKER [2023] NZHC 3844

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3844
    Court
    High Court

    The Court approved the liquidators' fees of $504,206 plus GST because the fees, although relatively high in hourly rate, were justified by the complexity and extent of the work, were disclosed to creditors throughout the liquidation, produced substantial value to creditors and shareholders, and fell within the consented hourly rate ranges when applied proportionately.

    • Liquidators' remuneration
    • Companies act s 284
    • Proportionality in remuneration
    • Disclosure to creditors