New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consumer guarantees act

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2023

SAPPA v FLETCHER DISTRIBUTION LIMITED t/a PLACEMAKERS NEW LYNN [2023] NZHC 2582 [15 September 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2582
Court

High Court

The amended statement of claim discloses no arguable cause of action: SHL's alleged losses are barred by express exclusion clauses in the trade terms; Sappa as guarantor lacks subrogation until full payment and has no greater rights than SHL; the guarantee expressly authorised lodging caveats over guarantor's property so caveat claims are untenable; CGA is excluded because SHL was in trade and contractual terms exclude it; alleged Fair Trading claims attack dealings with SHL and are not pleaded as personal losses of the guarantor; accordingly the proceeding is struck out.
13 Feb 2023

DAVERN v QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD [2023] NZHC 182

Citation

[2023] NZHC 182
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to treat the defendant's late objection as an irregularity and to consider admissibility; it upheld objections in part, ordering excision of passages in James's brief that expressed opinions on the legal meaning or contractual obligations under the 2012 RSMA and other assertions not demonstrably within his personal knowledge, while permitting contextual evidence about processes and documents in which he was personally involved to remain subject to amendment and to further scrutiny at trial.
21 Jul 2021

GAO v STARLIGHT CAPITAL LIMITED (6418392) [2021] NZHC 1846

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1846
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs had no real prospect of establishing a binding October 2020 settlement or of succeeding on their pleaded causes of action; they admitted the principal loan and default, produced no probative evidence to displace the written Term Loan Agreement and Settlement Deed, and their allegations under the Consumer Guarantees Act, PLA s176 and AMLCFT Act did not negate their repayment obligations. Accordingly no injunction issued, the plaintiffs' statement of claim (including claim against Mr Li) was struck out, and summary judgment entered for Starlight Capital for the claimed sum with s…
21 May 2020

CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v BECA CARTER HOLLINGS & FERNER LTD [2020] NZHC 1083

Citation

CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v BECA CARTER HOLLINGS & FERNER LTD [2020] NZHC 1083
Court

High Court

Adjournment was granted but limited to a four week postponement (trial move from 14 September 2020 to 12 October 2020) because the interests of justice required a short additional period for experts to prepare while avoiding loss of the allocated multi-week trial slot and further delay into 2021; the Court found remote and alternative measures available, plaintiff's lateness was regrettable but insufficient to justify a longer adjournment, and parties must use technology and cooperate to mitigate pandemic effects.
21 May 2020

CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v BECA CARTER HOLLINGS & FERNER LTD [2020] NZHC 1083

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1083
Court

High Court

Adjournment granted only for a limited period (four weeks to 12 October 2020) because (a) the interests of justice and efficient use of court resources require avoiding loss of a fixed 10-week trial slot where possible, (b) the plaintiff's late briefs and discovery caused delay but the stagnation causation theory was already within the scope of the litigation and defendants' experts had previously inspected the site, (c) parties are well resourced and alternative measures and remote technology can mitigate COVID-19 travel restrictions, and (d) a short adjournment balances fairness to defendan…
5 Mar 2020

Lu v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Limited [2020] NZHC 402

Citation

[2020] NZHC 402
Court

High Court

All pleaded and foreshadowed causes of action were untenable on the pleaded facts and contemporary documentary record: alleged promise to provide future lending was at best an ambiguous future intention subject to bank approval and inconsistent with documents and the borrowers' defaults; equitable estoppel failed for lack of clear unambiguous promise and because departure would not be unconscionable; CGA/service and fiduciary/duty claims were unsupported; PLA s176 claim failed because the bank took reasonable steps, followed professional advice and marketing and the sale outcome reflected mar…
31 May 2019

BROOKER v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1225

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1225
Court

High Court

Even if joinder jurisdiction might exist, exercise of discretion refused: the plaintiff's surviving claim against IAG is contractual (insurance) not a tort claim against Hawkins, Holloway's related claim is stayed by liquidation, QBE's presence as defendant is not necessary to adjudicate the plaintiff's claim, joinder would cause unfair prejudice, delay and expanded issues for the plaintiff and IAG can pursue its contractual remedies by third party proceedings; accordingly application to join QBE as defendant dismissed and leave granted to join as third party instead.
13 Dec 2018

JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC v WHITE [2018] NZCA 580

Citation

[2018] NZCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal

Where affidavit and documentary evidence, viewed collectively, disclose a credible factual narrative that an ultimate parent has taken steps amounting to assumed responsibility, exercised direct control, pooled technical resources or possessed superior knowledge relied upon by subsidiaries, a serious issue to be tried exists and the parent cannot be removed at interlocutory stage; therefore JHI's protest to jurisdiction was set aside and summary judgment applications by RCI and JHNZH were refused because factual matters warrant full trial and discovery.
5 Nov 2018

CAPITAL & COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v BECA CARTER HOLLINGS & FERNER LTD [2018] NZHC 2862

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2862
Court

High Court

The Court found Capital & Coast's pleaded factual allegations disclosed a tenable cause of action against Mico under the Consumer Guarantees Act such that Mico's presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues; potential limitation defences and disputed questions whether the plaintiff is a consumer or whether the pipes are goods are matters for trial, not for defeat of joinder. Accordingly joinder was granted but not backdated.
15 Dec 2017

MCLANAHAN AND TAN v STUDIO OF PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE LIMITED [2017] NZHC 3174 [15 December 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3174
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs' redactions were permissible only to the extent they concealed monetary fee figures, percentage fees and disbursement sums; all other redactions that removed materially relevant information about Novak+Middleton's scope of work, design details and communications tied to Mallon J's order must be disclosed. Specific document redactions are ordered varied as set out and corrected documents must be produced within 15 working days; costs reserved.