New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accounting of profits

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2023

MONNERY v PARSONS [2023] NZHC 1595

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1595
Court

High Court

Court held there had been a sufficient change in character and material circumstances (addition of three causes of action, doubling of claimed quantum, increased complexity and protraction, and continued non‑disclosure of plaintiffs' financial position) to justify revisiting the prior security order; it exercised discretion to order further global security for costs in the total sum of NZD 150,000 payable in staged tranches and ordered discovery of financial records including IR3 tax returns; failure to pay staged amounts when due will stay the plaintiffs' proceeding until payment.
28 Sept 2022

LI v XIE [2022] NZHC 2471

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2471
Court

High Court

On the papers the settlement reflected compromise and did not disclose a clear winner; pre‑trial settlement letters did not amount to effective withdrawal of the pleaded counterclaim and the amended counterclaim was filed without leave and therefore does not count for costs purposes; accordingly costs should lie where they fall at least until the commencement of the hearing on 4 July 2022 (and through the period 19 April–4 July 2022).
12 Jul 2021

CHRISTENSEN v GORDON [2021] NZHC 1737

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1737
Court

High Court

The freezing order was refused because plaintiffs lacked a good arguable case against Aluminate itself; company assets belong to the company and cannot be frozen on a claim only against the shareholders/trustees absent a direct claim or ownership interest in those assets; accordingly the Court cannot freeze Aluminate's assets when the live cause of action is only against the Gordons. The stay was granted because the balance of convenience favored preserving the Gordons' investment and business opportunity pending appeal; quantum hearing deferred until appeal resolved.
18 Mar 2020

McCOLLUM v THOMPSON [2020] NZHC 542

Citation

[2020] NZHC 542
Court

High Court

The Court declined to grant a further stay under s 43 because the PPSA claims could have been brought in the earlier High Court proceedings and, on the evidence, lack reasonable prospects of securing damages sufficient to extinguish the judgment debt; further, pursuing those claims now risks abuse of process; judgment debtors were given a final opportunity to pay the debt by a fixed deadline or be adjudicated bankrupt.
16 May 2017

LAM & ORS v MO & ORS [2017] NZHC 997

Citation

[2017] NZHC 997
Court

High Court

The Court found on the facts that the Lams held a 35% beneficial/joint venturer interest in the Plimmerton subdivision project (Sunlink Developments Ltd and Plimmerton Heights Construction Ltd); the Mos (and David Mo) owed fiduciary duties to the Lams in relation to that venture and must account for profits consistent with those duties; the Court ordered a Part 16 forensic accounting and report; claims in respect of Sunlink NZ and Sunlink Investments were dismissed; the claim against solicitor Steven Lee was dismissed for lack of a retainer and/or being statute-barred.
27 Mar 2012

CURTIS V GIBSON COA CA368/2010

Citation

COA CA368/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

The recall application was dismissed because no proper basis for recall was established: both respondents were parties and represented on appeal; the second respondent could have benefited from the contested dealings; and the costs order against both respondents was justified under rr 53 and 53A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
23 Jun 2010

RODNEY MARK GIBSON AND ANOR V RICHARD JOHN CURTIS AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2007-485-907

Citation

openlaw-4f458ce2_8a9e_468b_be7d_0cfddb8d9f43.pdf
Court

High Court

The court treated the two related proceedings as a single proceeding for costs, adopted the agreed scale B base of $85,440, applied a 20% reduction to reflect the failed Gibson claim (yielding $68,352), allowed a discretionary 20% uplift for a reasonable Calderbank offer (yielding $82,022), added $800 for wasted preparation, rejected recovery of half the patent expert's fee and halved filing/hearing fees, and awarded final costs of $82,822 and disbursements $22,059.69 to Mr Gibson.
18 May 2010

RODNEY MARK GIBSON AND ANOR V RICHARD JOHN CURTIS HC WN CIV 2007-485-907

Citation

openlaw-686990ce_bfc3_445e_a653_91220691f3a2.pdf
Court

High Court

No personal joint venture between Gibson and Curtis was proven on the evidence; the parties' rights were governed by formal corporate and licensing arrangements which left IP ownership with Gibson; therefore Curtis is not entitled to a share of the Australian licence proceeds and his claims (including fiduciary breach and proprietary interest in the project or Ihouz) fail; Habode NZ was insolvent in March 2006 and Gibson's actions were not shown to be a breach of fiduciary duty.
10 Jun 2009

KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT (ALSO TRADING AS SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC.) AND ORS V NICHOLAS VAN VEEN AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2004-485-1520

Citation

openlaw-0e187159_e8ff_4c4d_95e8_62073d569163.pdf
Court

High Court

The court accepted the defendant's sworn account as accurate, entered judgment for HK$9,000 and US$65,924.22 in favour of the plaintiffs, allowed the account hearing to proceed in the defendant's absence due to adequate notice, and awarded compound interest in equity from 23 July 2004 at rates prescribed by the Judicature Act with yearly rests to disgorge the defendant's profit; the plaintiffs were also awarded costs on a 2B basis from 15 December 2006 and specified disbursements totaling NZ$37,807.42.
26 Aug 2008

SEQUENT INTL LTD V NEW GENERATION CHINA LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-004761

Citation

openlaw-c268fe97_4798_4120_8de6_4034acbd312c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a serious question to be tried on exclusivity, misleading conduct and misuse of confidential information; balancing the risk of injustice, the Court granted limited interim relief because returning Sequent's original contracts and preventing use/representation of Sequent's work were simple summary matters that should be remedied now, while other wider orders were unnecessary; directed disclosure by affidavit, return of originals, restraints on representation and non-use pending further order and required plaintiff to file a formal statement of claim.