New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deceit/fraud

Legal area

Court

5 Jun 2020

SMITH & STOKES v PRAIN [2020] NZHC 1236

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1236
Court

High Court

Claims in deceit against the third defendant and Cardno and the negligence claim against Cardno were struck out under r15.1 for failing to disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action and for lack of required particulars of dishonesty or negligent conduct; the pleadings could not be cured by amendment on the material before the Court; delay was inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial; plaintiffs' application to lift the stay was dismissed.
20 Dec 2018

HULJICH v HULJICH [2018] NZHC 3429

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3429
Court

High Court

Plaintiff failed to prove a binding 1986 agreement or partnership or that Christopher and Peter were personally liable to repay the mortgage facility; the facility was made available for all three sons to draw with each son individually liable; accountants showed Christopher and Michael repaid more than they borrowed and the balance under the facility is attributable to Paul; allegations of deceit, fiduciary breach, unlawful retention of Just Water proceeds, wrongful agency conduct and breach of rental contract were unsupported or time-barred; accordingly all pleaded claims dismissed and judg…
8 Aug 2014

AMERICHIP INCORPORATED V DEAN CA184 [2014] NZCA 380

Citation

[2014] NZAR 1137
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the constructive trust claim concerned Auckland land and only New Zealand courts can determine and enforce title to that land, New Zealand was the most appropriate forum for that claim and therefore the High Court should assume jurisdiction; appearance under protest was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court to decide Americhip's summary judgment application.
13 Jun 2008

IVAN WEAVERS TYRE CENTRE LIMITED AND ANOR V GILL CONSTRUCTION CO LIMITED CA CA157/07

Citation

openlaw-5f3400f0_f7a2_412b_bef6_1d6c704a0cfb.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court: the combined invoice evidence, industry benchmarking and post-termination financial change supported findings that Weaver engaged in systemic over-invoicing constituting deceit and breaches of fiduciary duty (and, on the facts, breach of bailment was open though not essential); Mr and Mrs Weaver were personally liable for procuring and perpetuating the fraud; the quantum based on the Hooft report with a 10% contingency deduction was reasonable resulting in $878,360, and the Judge's approach to awarding interest on annual rests was within discretion.

New Zealand Case Law

SMITH & STOKES v PRAIN [2020] NZHC 1236

HULJICH v HULJICH [2018] NZHC 3429

AMERICHIP INCORPORATED V DEAN CA184 [2014] NZCA 380

IVAN WEAVERS TYRE CENTRE LIMITED AND ANOR V GILL CONSTRUCTION CO LIMITED CA CA157/07