WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010
Leave to cross-appeal was refused because the respondent failed to show the Court of Appeal made a sufficiently apparent and substantial error; the application for leave to appeal was granted on the approved ground whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding Westpac had breached its mandate.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010
- Parties
- Appellant: Westpac New Zealand Limited; Respondent: MAP & Associates Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 2 February 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal Application / Decision on Leave and Cross Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted; approved ground of appeal confined to whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding Westpac breached its mandate; application for leave to cross-appeal refused.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Cross Appeal, Indemnity Costs, Breach of Mandate
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Westpac New Zealand Limited
Appellant
MAP & Associates Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal Application / Decision on Leave and Cross Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to cross-appeal should be granted in respect of costs
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the High Court's indemnity costs order
- 3 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac breached its mandate
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to cross-appeal was refused because the respondent failed to show the Court of Appeal made a sufficiently apparent and substantial error; the application for leave to appeal was granted on the approved ground whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding Westpac had breached its mandate.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted; approved ground of appeal confined to whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding Westpac breached its mandate; application for leave to cross-appeal refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Approved ground of appeal: whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding Westpac had breached its mandate
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010 2 February 2011IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 98/2010[2011] NZSC 1BETWEEN WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDAppellantAND MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Blanchard, Tipping and William Young JJCounsel: R B Stewart QC for AppellantB D Gustafson for RespondentJudgment: 2 February 2011JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted.B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.REASONS[1] On the application for leave to cross-appeal, the respondent seeks tochallenge the Court of Appeal's decision on costs. The Court quashed the order forindemnity costs made by the High Court. The respondent contends that in doing so the Court erred in three ways and that leave should be granted because otherwise a miscarriage of justice may occur. The respondent contends that the test for leave to be granted in these circumstances, as set out in Junior Farms Ltd v HamptonSecurities Ltd,1 is met. The appellant submits that the necessary test is not met. We agree with the appellant.[2] The points raised by the respondent do not persuade us that as regards costs the Court of Appeal made a sufficiently apparent error of such a substantial character that it would be repugnant to justice to permit it to go uncorrected. Indeed we consider this case falls well short of meeting that high threshold. Hence the application for leave to cross- appeal should be refused.Solicitors:Kensington Swan, Auckland for Respondent1 (2006) PRNZ 369 (SC) at [5].