New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Auditor liability

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2016

LDC FINANCE LIMITED v MILLER & ORS [2016] NZHC 567

Citation

[2016] NZHC 567
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's case management decision to decline the defendants' proposed staged/split trial was correct and within discretion: the representative pleading complied with Credit Suisse principles, the plaintiffs (including the company plaintiff) accepted the risk of proving reliance, no manifest disadvantage to defendants was demonstrated, and staging is not mandatory but a discretionary tool the trial judge may refuse where inappropriate.
11 Dec 2015

LDC FINANCE LIMITED v DAVID GORDON MILLER, KEVIN ELLIOTT, CHRISTOPHER JOHN HARDIMAN AND JOHN CHARLES JANETTO [2015] NZHC 3165

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3165
Court

High Court

The Court held that plaintiffs may proceed with their chosen method of a single first trial on all causes of action in the fourth amended statement of claim (except the cause commencing at paragraph 279), because the defendants failed to demonstrate manifest prejudice from representative proof; the plaintiffs bear the risk that their method may fail to establish reliance under Boyd Knight and may appeal if necessary.
12 Nov 2013

LDC FINANCE LIMITED (In Receivership and In Liquidation) v DAVID GORDON MILLER, KEVIN ELLIOTT and ORS [2013] NZHC 2993

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2993
Court

High Court

The Court granted representative status for classes 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 and held that IRG members as at 29 October 2013 had validly opted in to be represented, but adjourned determination of class 1.1 because its temporal composition raised live limitation and cause‑of‑action issues that could deprive defendants of defences; the Court imposed staged disclosure, an opt‑in deadline for non‑IRG investors and review limits to balance judicial economy with protection of defendants' rights.
13 Dec 2010

MCCREADY V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV-2010-485-1577

Citation

openlaw-bcb48e36_1d86_4adb_bd2f_2a60de5be87a.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims for losses alleged to have been suffered by WISA and has not pleaded personal loss sufficient to sustain tort claims; the causes of action are plainly untenable (including that the claim against the Registrar was misconceived because WISA is a charity and that s229A obliged the Polytechnic to pass on fees), therefore the entire Statement of Claim is struck out.
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.

New Zealand Case Law

LDC FINANCE LIMITED v MILLER & ORS [2016] NZHC 567

LDC FINANCE LIMITED v DAVID GORDON MILLER, KEVIN ELLIOTT, CHRISTOPHER JOHN HARDIMAN AND JOHN CHARLES JANETTO [2015] NZHC 3165

LDC FINANCE LIMITED (In Receivership and In Liquidation) v DAVID GORDON MILLER, KEVIN ELLIOTT and ORS [2013] NZHC 2993

MCCREADY V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV-2010-485-1577

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