New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-claims

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2020

MEMELINK v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2020] NZHC 2709

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2709
Court

High Court

The Court will uphold an Official Assignee's admission of claims where there is sufficient prima facie support and where challenges raise complex factual or legal disputes that require separate timely proceedings; claims grounded in final judgments are presumptively enforceable; limitation periods must be applied to fee claims; consequentially the Court reduced or confirmed specific proofs of debt after examining the evidence and applying s234/s238 standards.
12 May 2015

BODY CORPORATE 330324 "CITY GARDENS APARTMENTS" v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 995

Citation

[2015] NZHC 995
Court

High Court

A cross-claim by a defendant against an existing co-defendant, brought contingently prior to judgment, is not a separate "civil proceeding relating to building work" caught by the Building Act 2004 s393 long-stop; therefore Downer was granted leave to file cross-claims against Auckland City Council and TAL to preserve entitlement to seek contribution under s17 Law Reform Act, and limitation issues remain between the plaintiffs and defendants rather than between defendants inter se.
19 Feb 2015

SYNNOTT v WOOD [2015] NZHC 217

Citation

[2015] NZHC 217
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to adjudicate the debtor bankrupt because the statutory requirements of s13 were established and the debtor failed to demonstrate an ability to pay the judgment debt within a reasonable time; asserted cross-claims and alleged solicitor conflict did not make adjudication unjust or inequitable and did not justify halting the application.
29 Jul 2014

BODY CORPORATE 325261 v MCDONOUGH & ORS [2014] NZHC 1821

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1821
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue claims against settled defendants was granted while preserving settled defendants as parties for purposes of SML's cross-claims. Leave to file the 10th amended statement of claim was granted in part and declined in part: amendments that merely update or correct pleadings and reflect expert conferencing were permitted; proposed amendments expressly adding anxiety about structural safety and certain late stigma evidence were declined because they risk prejudicing SML at a late stage. Proposed increases in floor diaphragm remediation estimates were permitted to the extent th…
23 Feb 2012

PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED & Anor V MAINZEAL PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & Ors HC AK CIV-2010-404-7597

Citation

openlaw-008f5d69_33c9_4655_b3df_1e6c5e3965ae.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs were entitled to discontinue against the nominated defendants. Statutory limitation (including Building Act s393 10‑year bar) and the fact of joinder do not prevent discontinuance or alter limitation defences available to potential cross-claimants; the court will not use procedural discretion to avoid statutory limitation outcomes absent other grounds such as injunctions or abuse of process. Accordingly leave to discontinue was granted.
6 Oct 2010

VECTOR GAS LIMITED V TODD PETROLEUM MINING COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2004-485-1753

Citation

openlaw-673fd95a_b417_4e3c_9a41_090f02a4d60c.pdf
Court

High Court

The judge exercised discretion under the High Court Rules and declined to award costs because Shell's short adjournment was reasonable in the circumstances, the conference addressed multiple matters (including discontinuance and costs on discontinuance), and the judge was not satisfied attendance could have been avoided even if Todd had not opposed the adjournment.
20 Nov 2008

LAWSON V PERKINS HC AK CIV-2008-404-2473

Citation

openlaw-4e383c2e_8ede_407c_8bfe_9b1e0b482000.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjudication was refused because the debtor was able to pay his debts and there were assets available against which the creditor could execute; adjudicating a solvent debtor in these circumstances would be a misuse of the bankruptcy process which is aimed at insolvent persons.
15 Nov 2007

TEMATA PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOR V HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC WN CIV-2004-441-151

Citation

openlaw-426b291d_7300_4c5a_ae16_d9a02bdea391.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to bring the summary judgment application was granted and summary judgment was entered for the third defendant because the defendant's unchallenged affidavit denied any involvement or culpability and there was no opposition or sustaining cross-claim that raised a triable issue.