New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages quantification

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2020

PVG SECURITIES TRUSTEE LTD v 100 INVESTMENTS LTD [2020] NZHC 3489

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3489
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to prove the factual causation or quantum of the claimed losses, the High Court correctly required evidence of how the restrained funds would have been invested rather than applying the Interest Act formula as proof, and the proposed grounds were neither arguable of sufficient public importance nor proportionate given the sums at stake.
3 Feb 2020

KIM DOTCOM v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY BUREAU [2020] NZSC 1

Citation

[2020] NZSC 1
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because no question of principle arose and no appearance of miscarriage of justice existed on these facts; the Special Advocate process did not miscarry; the Court of Appeal properly balanced the public interest in disclosure against demonstrable harm to national security and international relations under s70, and concluded non-disclosure was warranted.
7 Nov 2019

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS [2019] NZHC 2906

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2906
Court

High Court

The judge adjourned the stage two hearing (vacated the fixture and stood the hearing adjourned sine die) because the claimants were not ready to proceed, the plaintiff was required to pursue its Supreme Court leave application with urgency, and on balance the interests of justice (including prejudice to defendants, delay and public interest) justified adjournment while preserving defendants' entitlement to wasted costs and directions for their quantification.
2 Apr 2019

CLARK v RURAL LIVESTOCK LTD [2019] NZHC 671

Citation

[2019] NZHC 671
Court

High Court

The defendant is liable because its agent, John Williams, had apparent authority to arrange purchases and related leasing/recording services and the defendant, through its systems and by holding out agents, is responsible for failures to identify, deliver or account for stock; the exclusion clause could not exclude liability for total non‑performance or the misleading conduct found; plaintiffs proved contractual breach and FTA misleading conduct causing quantifiable loss, subject to mitigation which reduced some remedies to reliance measures.
14 Feb 2019

SHEN v OSSYANIN [2019] NZHC 135

Citation

[2019] NZHC 135
Court

High Court

Misrepresentation claim dismissed: vendor's repeated statements that the house did not leak were representations of his knowledge/opinion but were honestly and reasonably held given his maintenance regime and lack of observable defects; purchaser's reliance was induced but unreasonable in light of an expert pre-purchase report identifying potential weathertightness defects; no fraud proved; matter of common mistake reserved for further hearing as parties may have shared a mistaken assumption about the absence of leaking.
31 Oct 2018

HOEBERECHTS v SPROTT [2018] NZHC 2818

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2818
Court

High Court

The Court granted in part and refused in part the defendant's application for further particulars: particulars as to continuous personal and business use of the property and Mercedes were sufficient; plaintiff must specify the finance deadline for the alleged conditional purchase and must specify the date when the defendant first fell into breach regarding failure to sell and the date by which accounts should have been provided (all by 28 November 2018); did not require particulars on foreseeability because the claim is one of fiduciary infidelity/disloyalty where foreseeability/remoteness do…
25 Oct 2018

SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LTD v MY BOX NZ LTD [2018] NZHC 2768

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2768
Court

High Court

The defendants expressly and repeatedly represented that My Box operations and the use of My Box units to access Sky channels were lawful; those representations were objectively capable of misleading a reasonable consumer. The use of pre‑loaded media boxes with Kodi and add‑ons to locate and stream protected Sky broadcasts necessarily involves unauthorized copying and making works available to a new public, constituting communication to the public under the Copyright Act and the principles in Stichting Brein and related authority. Accordingly the defendants had no reasonably arguable defence…
20 Dec 2017

Dotcom v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2017] NZHC 3262

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3262
Court

High Court

Dismissed. Applicant failed to establish a reasonable prospect that the sealed Swery Proceedings file contained material relevant to the Extradition Proceedings, the US civil damages claims, or the NZ freezing orders; the request was speculative and the confidentiality interests and prior sealing order outweighed the limited public interest in access.
10 Oct 2017

HARBOUR CITY CONSTRUCTION 2012 LTD v LINK TECHNOLOGY 2000 LTD [2017] NZHC 2480

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2480
Court

High Court

The Court held that damages for wrongful use (mesne profits) were the appropriate measure for the defendants' substantial and ongoing trespass; assessed mesne profits based on commercial rental appraisals and awarded Harbour City NZD 59,686.98 plus NZD 1,012.00 removal costs; the defendants' counterclaim was defectively pleaded and must be particularised or struck out and costs awarded to Harbour City on a 2B basis with disbursements.
28 Apr 2017

LIGHTER QUAY RESIDENTSʼ SOCIETY INCORPORATED & ORS v WATERFRONT PROPERTIES (2009) LTD & ANOR [2017] NZHC 818

Citation

[2017] NZHC 818
Court

High Court

The applicants failed to discharge the evidential burden under r 8.19 to justify particular discovery because the evidence relied on (notably Mr Woodhams' affidavit) was speculative and did not establish a credible basis to believe the specific additional documents exist; Category Four primary documents were irrelevant to the contractual assignment issue; BDO Spicers' accounting and secretarial records are legally controlled by LQRS (not Waterfront) and therefore Waterfront cannot be compelled to discover those documents it does not control; given common questions of fact and transactional ov…