New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Debt recovery

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

GREY ROSE HOLDING LTD v ARISE CONSTRUCTION LTD [2023] NZHC 3431

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3431
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because Arise lacked funds to retain counsel, both directors owned and controlled the company and had aligned interests with Arise, the co-director consented, Mr O'Halloran demonstrated sufficient capacity to comply with procedural requirements, and allowing him to represent Arise would not materially prejudice the plaintiff; these factors constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an exercise of the court's discretion to permit non-lawyer representation.
20 Oct 2022

MOXHAM MILK LIMITED v CLARK [2022] NZHC 2729

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2729
Court

High Court

The Court found s 13 requirements satisfied, declined to look behind the District Court judgment because it was decided on the merits and not appealed, held the defendant remained personally liable because the payment was not received merely as an agent and was received with notice of irregularity, and exercised its discretion to adjudicate the defendant bankrupt; public interest in recovery and potential asset investigation supported the order.
10 Aug 2021

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD v CHEN [2021] NZHC 2063

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2063
Court

High Court

The court granted summary judgment against Ms Chen because the plaintiff established entitlement to judgment by evidence of the debt and proper substituted service, and the defendant offered no opposition or evidence to raise a genuine issue for trial.
6 Jul 2021

WAIKORO LTD v BEACH ARENA LTD [2021] NZHC 1673

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1673
Court

High Court

Waikoro's claim was not an abuse of process because the Waimauri and Waikoro proceedings involve different plaintiffs, defendants, contracts and causes of action and consolidation had been refused; however BAL's pleaded variation/estoppel case and related allegations that were decided against BAL and Mr Mahon by Muir J (and identical to matters previously litigated) were struck out on cause/issue estoppel and abuse of process grounds; several elements of BAL's counterclaims were time barred under the Limitation Act; security for costs was refused because remaining counterclaims were connected…
16 Feb 2021

EXTENSOR ADVISORY LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 313609 [2021] NZHC 174

Citation

[2021] NZHC 174
Court

High Court

Although Extensor acted reasonably in bringing the application, the Court exercised its discretion under r 14.1 to displace the default rule in r 15.23 because the application was effectively unnecessary given an earlier appointment of an administrator and causation between Extensor's filing and payment of the debt was unclear; accordingly costs should lie where they fall.
3 Jul 2020

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2020] NZHC 1563

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1563
Court

High Court

Leave under s165 was refused because the proposed derivative claim did not clearly serve Johnson Preschool's best interests: prospects of success were not appreciably better than even given competing evidence that the company received the benefit (purchase of 34 Long Drive), the claim risked delaying the plaintiffs' debt recovery and creating duplicative proceedings, the marginal costs were material, the claim was partial leaving scope for future litigation, and the applicant had an ulterior purpose related to relationship property. Consequently the application was dismissed and the earlier c…
16 Aug 2019

HARVEY v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2025

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2025
Court

High Court

The appellant was personally liable because he signed application forms containing an express undertaking to pay the water connection costs, the Council was entitled to rely on that signed representation, s 252 LGA 2002 does not restrict recovery to the registered proprietor alone, and substance prevailed over form given the appellant's control and conduct.
23 Jul 2019

Ellice v Stallard [2019] NZHC 1739

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1739
Court

High Court

The court found on credible unchallenged evidence that the regular cash transfers were loans under an oral agreement to repay on demand, that the defendant accepted and agreed to repay, demand was made in September 2012 and he defaulted; accordingly breach of contract provided a recoverable cause of action and judgment was entered for principal $522,323 with simple interest at 4% per annum from 30 September 2012 under s 24(2)(b)(i) of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 and costs on scale 2A.
12 Feb 2019

NAYLOR LOVE CONSTRUCTION LTD v BODY CORPORATE 200012 [2019] NZHC 120

Citation

[2019] NZHC 120
Court

High Court

An application under s 141 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 to appoint an administrator of a body corporate is not a debt recovery proceeding for the purposes of s 59(2)(a) of the Construction Contracts Act 2002; therefore actual and reasonable costs under s 59(2)(a)(ii) do not apply to such an application and the proper award is costs on a scale (here 2B).
22 Aug 2016

Harlen v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2016] NZHC 1954

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1954
Court

High Court

The High Court extended time because the delay was explained, did not prejudice the respondent and the applicant acted diligently; however leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not raise bona fide questions of law of sufficient general or public importance, most issues were fact-specific, the High Court had correctly limited the appeal's scope to whether recovery may occur, and established principle requires rare or unusual circumstances to justify non-recovery of fraudulently incurred social security debt.