New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of statutory duty

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2023

KENNEDY v BODY CORPORATE 82981 [2023] NZHC 3123

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3123
Court

High Court

Leave of the Court is not required to commence a common law derivative action in the context of a body corporate governed by the Unit Titles Act; standing challenges should be addressed by strike-out, preliminary issue, or at trial rather than by a mandatory leave regime; under r 4.56(1)(b) the Court ordered joinder of Leigh Francis Burney and Diane Florence Burney as fourth and fifth defendants; the Court declined to determine standing on this interlocutory application and left procedural options open to the defendants.
2 Sept 2022

KING v HARRISON [2022] NZHC 2184

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2184
Court

High Court

The Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 is procedural and contains no indication Parliament intended to create a private statutory cause of action; the Privacy Act remedy route is regulatory not a direct private tort against the trustee, the bribery allegation disclosed no known cause of action, and the District Court had jurisdiction to determine and dismiss unsupportable causes; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the strike out/summary judgment upheld.
6 May 2022

AR (INDIA) v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZSC 55

Citation

[2022] NZSC 55
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the central s 8 claim could not succeed on the facts regardless of its legal scope, the risk to life issue was already authoritatively determined by prior Tribunal and High Court findings so relitigation would be abuse of process, the proposed statutory duty claim was not raised below and could be pursued in new proceedings, and the additional Tikanga Māori argument was not particularised; extension of time and counsel leave were granted.
18 Nov 2021

HONG v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZCA 611

Citation

[2021] NZCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held causes of action 1, 2 and 3(1) merely re-litigated issues finally determined by the High Court and therefore constituted an impermissible collateral attack/abuse of process and were correctly struck out; cause of action 3(2) was deficient in pleading but raised matters beyond the prior appeal and was allowed to be re-pleaded within one month; the High Court costs judgment was correctly made and was upheld.
2 Jul 2021

AR (INDIA) v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZCA 291

Citation

[2021] NZCA 291
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: s 8 of the NZBORA does not extend to a generalized deprivation of dignity or reduction in quality of life absent a real risk to life; the appellant's dignity claim was clearly untenable and properly struck out; the risk-to-life claim was barred as an abuse of process because the Tribunal and High Court had already rejected the risk findings and the appellant had not pursued statutory review remedies (and the claim would be rendered moot by imminent replacement passport); limited further evidence was admitted but amendment to plead breach of statutory duty was n…
22 Jun 2021

WENZHOU HONGLIANG TRADING CO LTD v FINNIGAN [2021] NZHC 1499

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1499
Court

High Court

The application to vacate the trial was refused because it was made at a late stage, the interests of justice did not require adjournment given the case had been litigated and pleaded for over two years, the defendants had disclosed adequate material and prepared for trial, and allowing the adjournment would cause undue prejudice and inefficiency; limited leave was granted to file an amended statement of claim to add McDonald Vague only on condition it did not raise new issues requiring additional evidence, and defendants were awarded costs of the vacate application.
18 Jun 2021

PALMER v HEWITT BUILDING LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1460

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1460
Court

High Court

Part 4A statutory warranties are implied into the residential building contract and do not create personal liability for an individual who was not a contracting party; there is no implied civil remedy in damages under other Building Act duties beyond Parliament's enacted regime. However an individual builder who personally carries out or supervises building work owes a tortious duty of care to take reasonable care to meet the standards of a reasonable builder (generally those in the Building Code) and to ensure work is consentable and demonstrable to the consenting authority. Applying that du…
11 Jun 2021

CBL INSURANCE LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v HARRIS [2021] NZHC 1393

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1393
Court

High Court

The court held IPSA does not create an implied private right of action by a licensed insurer against its appointed actuary for breach of statutory duty and therefore the ninth cause of action was struck out; clause 9 of PwC's engagement terms unambiguously barred CBLI from bringing claims against PwC partners or employees, and the claims against Messrs Mackay and Rhodes in the negligence cause were struck out; clause 6.1(iv) plainly capped PwC's civil liability to five times fees, so claims against PwC exceeding that cap were not reasonably arguable and were limited accordingly (with leave to…
10 Jun 2021

DAISLEY v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1376

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1376
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of defence in respect of most challenged amendments because allowing factual and defensive amendments (including pleading Crown ownership of minerals, contesting plaintiff's due diligence, and causation/quantum issues) was necessary for the real controversy to go to trial, the plaintiff would not suffer significant prejudice given the rescheduled trial and time to file replies and supplementary evidence, and delay could be managed by a firm timetable; leave was refused for proposed pleading content that amounted to submissions rather than factual…
20 Apr 2021

MEMELINK v BODY CORPORATE 68792 [2021] NZHC 835

Citation

[2021] NZHC 835
Court

High Court

Given the long period of inactivity following judicial directions, the plaintiffs' elected pause pending an audit and pursuit of insolvency remedies, and the intrinsic need for prompt challenges to levies, the delays were inordinate and inexcusable, caused serious prejudice and made it unjust to allow the proceeding to continue; therefore the claim is struck out under r 15.2 High Court Rules 2016 and costs awarded to the defendant on a 2B basis.