New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Choses in action

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2023

YOUNG v ROSS [2023] NZHC 212

Citation

[2023] NZHC 212
Court

High Court

The appeals were dismissed because the contractual rights asserted by Young vested in the Official Assignee on bankruptcy and were not available to him, the Court lacked jurisdiction to reopen final determinations of the Standards Committee and LCRO, the Contempt of Court Act did not apply retrospectively and does not provide the claimed remedies, and Progressive Accountants Ltd was not a designated beneficiary under s 12(1) CCLA; accordingly all causes of action had no prospect of success and were properly struck out.
28 Mar 2022

DEMARCO v THE VINTAGE AVIATOR LIMITED (15672720) [2022] NZCA 84

Citation

[2022] NZCA 84
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the appellant was adjudicated bankrupt before filing the appeal, his rights to bring the appeal vested in the Official Assignee under s101 of the Insolvency Act 2006; he therefore lacked standing and the appeal was a nullity and must be dismissed.
9 Mar 2021

LINK TECHNOLOGY 2000 LTD v PETERLAND LTD [2021] NZHC 428

Citation

[2021] NZHC 428
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed the statutory threshold: he did not demonstrate he was a person suffering loss or damage from the Assignee's disclaimer (the primary causes of action were company-only choses in action and thus did not injure him personally) and his sole personal cause (patent claim) lacked merit; accordingly no vesting order under s119 was made and, alternatively, vesting would have been unfair given delay and lack of demonstrated funding.
12 Jul 2019

UTATAO v BISHOP WARDEN LTD [2019] NZHC 1633

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1633
Court

High Court

On an objective construction of the short form agreements (including the sub‑heading designations above the signatures and clauses 8–8.3), the appellant signed in a dual capacity including as a personal guarantor; the deed of assignment transferred the legal and beneficial interest in the debts and was valid under the Property Law Act; there was no real defence to the respondent's claim so summary judgment was properly granted and the appeal was dismissed.
1 Sept 2015

MIAH v THE NATIONAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALASIA LIMITED [2015] NZHC 993

Citation

[2015] NZHC 993
Court

High Court

On contractual construction the death benefit was intended for the surviving spouse so the deceased did not have an enforceable beneficial right to a share of the death benefit; the contingent contractual right was property/chose in action within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1967 and vested in the Official Assignee on the plaintiff's bankruptcy; there was no abandonment and the plaintiff therefore lacked standing to sue; accordingly all causes of action failed and summary judgment was entered for the defendant.
17 May 2013

LANGSTON V MOUNT HUTT HELICOPTERS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-002820

Citation

openlaw-61df18b0_709b_4200_8fed_7c6217efa1af.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found clause 3.7 ambiguous as to whether "claims" included the non‑monetary helicopter usage obligation in clause 5.1; applying the principle that ambiguity in a release is resolved against the grantor, the clause did not extinguish the liability in clause 5.1. Accordingly the defendant's affirmative defence failed and the plaintiff's entitlement under clause 5.1 survives (with the alternative finding that, had 3.7 clearly extinguished 5.1 it would have operated to discharge the joint benefit leaving Langston to seek recourse against Wilderness).
18 Jun 2010

SAVILL AND ANOR V ROGERS AND RUTHERFORD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-003011

Citation

openlaw-9535184a_09e3_4142_b26e_d731f5d3dd5d.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court: the contemporaneous documents and deed recitals showed the assignment related to the ANZ/Hanmer $45,000 loan (the same debt dealt with in 2001), Savill and Reid failed to prove a distinct joint debt secured against the $100,000, Savill's credibility and documentary gaps fatally undermined their claim, and the $100,000 vested in the Official Assignee on Kettle's bankruptcy; appeal dismissed.
26 Nov 2009

SIEMER AND SIEMER AND ANOR V FARDELL HC AK CIV-2003-404-005782

Citation

openlaw-545d7820_76ad_4987_b5e6_51739cb1d211.pdf
Court

High Court

Application to strike out was adjourned because one plaintiff (Mrs Siemer) properly opposed and was entitled to be heard; whether Mr Siemer's choses in action vested in the Official Assignee under s101 is unresolved and cannot be determined on the duty list; the Official Assignee must file an affidavit confirming any refusal to assign and the date of written notice; directions for hearing and service on the Solicitor-General were ordered and the defendant may amend to seek costs against Mrs Siemer.
6 Apr 2006

SINTEL-COM LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV 2004-404-1677

Citation

openlaw-a389d233_1d58_4202_8e53_532895bc8cd0.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that an assignment by way of mortgage of choses in action does not, by itself, bar the assignor (or its liquidators) from suing to recover those choses provided the assignee's interests are protected; the debenture covenant did not prevent Sintel's liquidators pursuing the claims because the proposed litigation would not prejudice the security holder and, even if consent were required, Telecom could not withhold consent for an improper collateral purpose; accordingly the strike out application failed and Sintel may pursue the causes of action subject to protecting the debenture…