New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of mandate

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2015

CRUMMER TRUSTEES NO.83 LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2015] NZHC 2165

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2165
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because genuine factual issues remained on mandate and internet‑banking authority; however the sixth (breach of mandate) claim as pleaded was struck out for want of standing by the plaintiff (accounts held by Park Road as trustee and Winning Trust only a discretionary beneficiary), and the seventh (fiduciary/constructive trust) and eighth (negligence) causes of action were struck out as untenable given the discretionary beneficiary status and lack of proprietary interest; particular discovery was denied.
11 Mar 2015

WATERFRONT PROPERTIES (2009) LTD V LIGHTER QUAY RESIDENTS' SOCIETY INC CA775/2013 [2015] NZCA 62

Citation

[2015] NZAR 492
Court

Court of Appeal

It was arguable that the expert, having expressly stated he could not resolve fundamental conflicts in sworn evidence and that the outcome might have differed if witnesses had been questioned, materially departed from his mandate by issuing a final determination without reconvening or taking steps to resolve those conflicts; accordingly the strike out application failed and the respondents' first cause of action should proceed to the High Court.
12 Oct 2012

ELVIDGE V ASB BANK LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2011-441-000811

Citation

openlaw-39e1eaaf_6bfc_41b1_80ab_a7876c87c105.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered that the defendant be provided with an unredacted copy of the deed of assignment restricted to defendant's legal advisors, adjourned the particulars application pending non-party discovery, and granted security for costs in two staggered tranches totalling NZD 62,500 (NZD 25,000 and NZD 37,500) because the plaintiffs had not proved their impecuniosity was likely caused by the bank and the plaintiffs' claim had limited prospects such that security was appropriate.
16 Aug 2011

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010

Citation

SC 98/2010
Court

Supreme Court

A bank defending a prima facie claim for breach of mandate must establish that acting on its customer's instructions would actually have made it liable for dishonest assistance (or other actionable wrongdoing); a mere reasonable belief, suspicion or concern that it might be involved in dishonest assistance is not a sufficient defence. Wilful blindness can amount to dishonesty, but the bank must show facts establishing actual or equivalent knowledge, not mere suspicion.
2 Feb 2011

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010

Citation

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010
Court

Supreme Court

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.
6 Sept 2010

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD V MAP & ASSOCIATES LTD CA193/2009

Citation

openlaw-c2d94b8f_cdb4_4272_b702_411144b94c0d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Westpac breached its mandate by unjustifiably refusing to disburse funds; on the facts Westpac should have acted when it received the 29 February 2008 letter (received 2 March 2008) and therefore interest under the Judicature Act is payable from 2 March 2008; the High Court's indemnity costs order was not justified and is quashed.

New Zealand Case Law

CRUMMER TRUSTEES NO.83 LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2015] NZHC 2165

WATERFRONT PROPERTIES (2009) LTD V LIGHTER QUAY RESIDENTS' SOCIETY INC CA775/2013 [2015] NZCA 62

ELVIDGE V ASB BANK LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2011-441-000811

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD V MAP & ASSOCIATES LTD CA193/2009