19 Jul 2016
Second defendant was validly served, did not file a statement of defence within the prescribed time, and the plaintiff proved entitlement to repayment of the loan with compound interest at the agreed 5% per annum; consequently judgment for the plaintiff and award of costs and disbursements was warranted.
4 May 2016
The court found significant and credible factual disputes—notably the second defendant's denial of knowledge and her allegation the loan agreement may be fabricated and the provenance of the original document—that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone; therefore the plaintiff could not prove there was no defence and summary judgment was not appropriate, so the application was dismissed.
12 Sept 2014
On the evidence the Court found Schofield secretly controlled Belgrave and dishonestly assisted its directors to effect undisclosed related-party lending in breach of the debenture trust; Buckley, as director and Schofield's agent, breached fiduciary duties; both are jointly liable to compensate Belgrave for unrecovered advances of $8,615,107.74 (rounded to $8,615,108) with simple interest, leave reserved to seek compound interest if profits above simple interest are proved.
9 Sept 2014
There is no statutory authority under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to pay interest on unpaid interest (compound interest); therefore the appellant's claim for interest on interest fails and the appeal is dismissed.
15 Dec 2011
Judgment awarded for plaintiffs in the specified principal amounts; only simple interest was available because no defendant both had fiduciary liability and could be shown to have personally profited such that compound interest would be justified; interest runs from the date each improper payment was made; set off for an unpleaded and unproven director's salary is rejected; costs are deferred pending provision of scale particulars and may include indemnity uplift against the first defendant subject to assessment.
8 Jun 2011
The trust is entitled to recover $253,445.21 jointly and severally from the first and second defendants as equitable monetary relief for breach of trust and fiduciary duty; interest is payable from the dates of the wrongful drawings with simple interest payable on the principal against both defendants, compound interest awarded against the first defendant on the principal and against the second defendant on the specific sums he personally profited from ($13,911.94 and $52,491.78); exemplary damages of $10,000 awarded against the first defendant; costs and disbursements awarded as detailed (th…
3 Jun 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law capable of bona fide argument was raised; the correct legal test is that interest runs from one month after ACC received all necessary information, there is no entitlement to compound interest, the divisor 3.14 was correct and ACC's decision was favourable so no appellate intervention was required.
18 Sept 2009
The Court found on the evidence that Herbert Equities paid monies for a specified purpose which the defendants knowingly misapplied for personal use; equitable remedies follow. The defendants are liable to repay the sums with compound interest because fraud was proven and part of the funds were used for a commercial property investment; a constructive trust and tracing claim entitled HEL to 28% of the amalgamated Brookby Road property; permanent injunctive relief was necessary to prevent threatened improper appointment of a receiver; security for costs was to be released given the successful…
14 May 2008
The Court granted leave to continue the proceeding under s 76 because the Official Assignee did not appear and continuation was appropriate to determine the compound interest claim; it found the defendant had used his position of influence such that the advances (less $60,000 repaid) were recoverable as arising from undue influence and struck out his defence, entering judgment for $260,000 and awarding compound interest at a rate 2.5% above the plaintiffs' bank overdraft from the times payments were made.
11 Jan 2008
Because ACC determined interest during the operation of the 2001 Act it was obliged to apply s371 of that Act, which precludes payment of interest for periods before 1 July 1992; therefore the appellant is not entitled to interest prior to that date and the appeal is dismissed.