New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of choses in action

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2021

DAIRY SOLUTIONZ (NZ) LTD v PACIFIC DAIRY HOLDINGS LTD (In Liq) [2021] NZHC 3054

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3054
Court

High Court

The written assignment complied with Property Law Act s 50 and transferred DSL's rights and remedies under the Heads of Agreement to Dairy Solutionz (Processing) Ltd, so DSL lacked any arguable counterclaim or set-off when it applied under s 290; there were no other compelling grounds under s 290(4)(c) to set aside the statutory demand; the application is dismissed and DSL ordered to pay the NZD equivalent of USD 50,000 as determined by the expert.
3 Aug 2021

MEMELINK v HAINES [2021] NZHC 1992

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1992
Court

High Court

Deeds of assignment dated 7 December 2018 validly assigned the Fico and Bright debts to the Link Trust (taken by trustees), the assignee financed repayment of the finance companies via General Finance and the assignments were effective under ss50–51 Property Law Act; notice to debtors was not required to effect assignment and the Official Assignee's consent was not a prerequisite to the proceedings; the defendants raised no tenable defence to liability and summary judgment on liability is entered; counterclaim causes were defective and must be amended but not struck out; quantum to be tried.
15 Jul 2019

LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED v NALDAPAT LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1646

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1646
Court

High Court

The caveat lodged by LW354 Ltd was removed: even accepting arguendo an equitable trusteeship interest, the claims formerly prosecuted by GLW Group Ltd were effectively discharged by settlement with the liquidator and the abandonment of the appeal; the mortgagee's priority and Fitzgerald J's decision make the caveat futile because any trustee interest would be extinguished on transfer under s103 LTA 2017; additionally the caveat was lodged in breach of a prior court order and an undertaking, justifying removal in the exercise of the court's discretion.
20 Feb 2019

FTG SECURITIES LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZCA 16

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 607
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 15 of the Deed of Priority required BNZ's approval of the form of any deed by which an assignee agreed to be bound; that consent was not sought or obtained so the First and Second Assignments were ineffective against BNZ and FTG lacked standing to enforce the Deed of Priority against BNZ; registration of a mortgage did not negate the contractual requirement for consent.
2 Jun 2016

WATSON & SON LIMITED v WHITEHEAD & ORS AS TRUSTEES OF THE J AND R WHITEHEAD TRUST [2016] NZCA 241

Citation

[2016] NZCA 241
Court

Court of Appeal

Equitable set‑off between amounts owing for honey and amounts owing for hive rental must be applied at each periodic due date so that interest is charged only on the net balance; Shiloh had no legal entitlement to demand JRWT pay rental directly under the renegotiated November 2011 arrangements and clause 4.2 of 2010 agreements did not continue to govern after the deed of arrangement; contractual 18% interest on overdue honey remained payable until actual payment; damages for hives were limited to proven repair costs; indemnity costs under the honey agreement were not appropriate in full and…
27 May 2016

Herron v Wallace [2016] NZHC 1129

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1129
Court

High Court

Court held there was no absolute assignment of CAPL's apartment contracts to Lombard; repayment of the Lombard Belmont facility discharged Lombard's security so Defendant Wallace had procured release and was entitled to credits reducing the apartment component to $675,000; the Queenstown apartment credit did not apply because the sale never became unconditional; SH9 did not create a separate enforceable $600,000 debt on the evidence and is best read as part of the wider arrangements; interest did not accrue because contractual triggers (title transfer or demand) did not occur; the oppression…
18 Jun 2015

KAWARAU VILLAGE HOLDINGS LIMITED v DAVID YUEN SING CHI [2015] NZHC 1379

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1379
Court

High Court

The Court ordered that the defendant be permitted to inspect the Kingston West and Lakeside West buildings to identify discoverable downgrades and must provide particulars of the alleged significant downgrades within eight weeks (fixed to 14 August 2015); tailored discovery directions were given requiring the plaintiff to disclose specified categories of documents including internal decision‑making documents where relevant under the adverse documents test, documents showing Austpac's and the defendant's knowledge of the 2007 assignment (but not the 2010 assignment), and other limited classes…
18 Oct 2013

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) v CAVELL LEITCH PRINGLE & BOYLE [2013] NZHC 2718

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2718
Court

High Court

Even accepting for present purposes that the solicitor's undertaking was assignable and was assigned and that Cavell Leitch breached it, Dominion Finance suffered no loss causally attributable to that breach because the deposits were held subject to s225 RMA conditions and, due to Dominion Finance's decision as mortgagee to sell the development in bulk at higher unit prices, the purchasers were entitled to rescind and recover their deposits; awarding the deposits to Dominion would permit double recovery and Dominion was not entitled to them.
19 Aug 2013

SOUTHERN RECEIVABLES LIMITED v ARAMBAŠIĆ [2013] NZHC 2157

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2157
Court

High Court

The assignment was legally effective under s50(1) Property Law Act 2007 by consideration of the contractual framework (November 2009 agreement), ANZ's nomination schedules and SRL's payment such that rights passed to SRL; business records of the bank were admissible under the Evidence Act 2006 and established the debt and contractual interest; prior District Court discontinuances and alleged misconduct by a process-server do not provide a defence to the claim; defendant produced no admissible evidence to rebut the plaintiff, so summary judgment entered for the plaintiff for the claimed amount…
30 Mar 2012

BODY CORPORATE 180379 AND DONK PROPERTIES LIMITED V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2011-404-005330

Citation

openlaw-5b2b1ffa_4d1f_458f_9b06_3a0b4d8683bc.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal: where an assignor (the Watsons) validly commenced a claim within the limitation period under the 2002 Act and thereafter assigned the cause of action to the purchaser (Donk) before the 2006 Act transition date, the assignment did not require Donk to file a new claim within the limitation period nor was the assignment rendered ineffectual as against the Council for the purposes of defeating the claim; Mountain Road did not defeat the appellants because the assignor had commenced proceedings in time and could continue the action for the assignee's benefit wher…