New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of claims

Legal area

Court

20 May 2021

TANDEM GROUP LIMITED v ASB BANK LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1135

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1135
Court

High Court

Costs for the interlocutory strike out and summary judgment applications were fixed and payable now on a 2B basis ($8,173.80) because Tandem was entitled to costs on the strike out aspect, the summary judgment and strike out covered essentially the same ground making separation artificial, the affidavit preparation costs are covered by Schedule 3 item 23 and do not attract a separate award, there was no exceptional feature justifying second counsel costs, and the expert witness disbursement is reserved until after the substantive trial.
24 Jul 2020

MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED v SINCLAIR [2020] NZHC 1819

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1819
Court

High Court

Sinclair failed to establish a triable case that he holds an assignable enforceable interest in the arbitral award because the evidence was insufficient (unauthenticated draft, affidavits without supporting documentation, and a letter only promising a future assignment); accordingly the Court refused to exercise any discretion to stay enforcement of validly registered judgments, relying on Court of Appeal authority that enforcement should not be suspended by prospective related litigation. Thus the application to set aside the bankruptcy notices was dismissed.
31 May 2018

GABRIEL v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2018] NZHC 1255

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1255
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant did not establish beyond argument that the insured's statements were an unambiguous representation abandoning all claims; it was at least arguable the insured only referred to the EQC-excluded claim and the alleged representation was therefore ambiguous, so the waiver defence could not be determined finally on summary judgment.
6 Apr 2016

SONSRAM TRUSTEE LIMITED v HARRISON FRIERSON CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 581

Citation

[2016] NZHC 581
Court

High Court

All causes of action accrued no later than early July 2008 when the defendant's consultancy services were completed (final progress schedule/practical completion and council certification); reasonable discoverability did not defer accrual; the alleged signature defect did not prevent the practical completion certificate operating in the engineer's name; the claims were therefore statute-barred when proceedings were issued and summary judgment was appropriate for the defendant.
28 May 2014

SHEPHARD & ANOR v MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON & ORS [2014] NZHC 1160

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1160
Court

High Court

The Registrar was correct to require payment from the second defendants because a summary judgment application is an interlocutory application captured by the High Court Fees Regulations 2013 and Regulation 9 requires the applicant to pay the scheduling and estimated hearing fees; item 20 applies to this application, so the second defendants must pay the required fee.
13 Feb 2014

SHARMA v BODY CORPORATE NO 205539 [2014] NZHC 152

Citation

[2014] NZHC 152
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the settlement rights were personal to the original owners and there was no evidence of any valid assignment from the original owner to the appellants; consequently the Body Corporate was entitled to levy and obtain summary judgment for the unpaid levies.
20 Jul 2012

MULHOLLAND V LEVIN HC AK CIV-2012-404-003089

Citation

openlaw-aedc65a3_1a6c_41b1_a657_a0962b1e7824.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to pursue the assignment issue by originating application and held there was no binding settlement on the terms claimed because the liquidators' correspondence sought creditor views and contained conditions; nevertheless the liquidators' insistence on a non-consolidation clause was unreasonable given the risk of limitation, lack of liquidators' intention to pursue the claim and absence of liquidators' merits assessment, so the Court directed assignment to the directors on defined terms (two month commencement, 25% of net recoveries held on trust for liquidators, credit…
31 Aug 2009

FIFER RESIDENTIAL LIMITED V LOWNDES ASSOCIATES HC AK CIV-2008-404-6299

Citation

openlaw-428bb89d_7749_4027_b9ed_733bd95dc075.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the issues of what advice was given, whether it was adequate on limitation and assignment and whether the proceedings were reasonable mitigation raise disputed facts and complex legal questions that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence; plaintiff has a reasonably arguable negligence claim requiring a full trial.
23 Feb 2009

WILLEM ROBERT MARSMAN, UTA BLEIDISTEL AND THK TRUSTEES LIMITED V ROLAND JOHANNES NIJKRAKE CA CA267/2008

Citation

openlaw-927c06e5_30d1_4c10_af40_e7e98fa64e7b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because conflicting expert evidence on when the claimant became 'fully aware' and on whether payments constituted confirmation could not be resolved on the papers, and because the respondent produced prima facie evidence of an assignment which the trustees failed to rebut, the Court held the respondent had a reasonably arguable case and the caveat must be maintained; accordingly the trustees' appeal to lapse the caveat was dismissed.
23 Jul 2008

NEW ZEALAND EXCHANGE LIMITED V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND AND ORS SC 13/2008

Citation

SC 13/2008
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the relevant Exchange rules were materially changed after the events, so the duty question lacked general importance, and the disputed issues of causation and attribution were fact dependent and unsuitable for resolution on a strike‑out application; therefore the matter should proceed to trial and, if necessary, return on appeal with factual findings in place.