New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dishonest assistance

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2023

CAYMAN SPECTRUM (NZ) CO v SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LTD [2023] NZCA 428 [7 September 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZCA 428
Court

Court of Appeal

The challenged paragraphs were not necessary to the pleaded dishonest assistance and knowing receipt causes of action, and many pleaded allegations (notably of anti-competitive purpose and Commerce Act breaches and speculative claims about what lawyers would have known) were irrelevant to equitable liability, likely to materially increase length and complexity of trial and to cause prejudice or delay; strike out under r 15.1 was justified and should be upheld, leaving concise pleadings and trial judge control over admissible evidence under the Evidence Act.
17 Aug 2023

100 INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v WALKER AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 2227

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2227
Court

High Court

The Court refused to restrain Minters because there was no real likelihood they would be required to defend their own advice or give contentious evidence and no convincing demonstration that Minters held confidential information creating a real risk of disclosure; on strike-out applications the Court declined to strike out the principal causes of action against LPF and SPF (save for specific discrete pleaded particulars found untenable) and ordered amendments and particulars, directing a further amended statement of claim and making costs orders as set out in the judgment.
8 May 2023

CAYMAN SPECTRUM (NZ) CO v SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LTD [2023] NZHC 1063

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1063
Court

High Court

The challenged paragraphs were struck out because they were irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action and Spark's knowledge at the time of entering the agreements, would require extensive unrelated evidence and cross-examination, and would cause unfair prejudice, delay and complexity; propensity reasoning and post hoc anti-competitive allegations could not properly be used to prove Spark's knowledge for the dishonest assistance claim.
24 Apr 2023

QU v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE PROPERTY OF ZENG [2023] NZHC 917

Citation

[2023] NZHC 917
Court

High Court

The court held Ms Zhao liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt; quantified damages by deducting the knowing receipt award from the dishonest assistance award to prevent double recovery resulting in $8,585,199 for dishonest assistance and $185,810 for knowing receipt; awarded interest on both sums from 23 February 2017 to payment, calculated under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016; dismissed the dishonest assistance claim in relation to the Misappropriated Funds; awarded costs of $19,722 to the plaintiffs.
19 Jan 2023

HANNON v SENIOR TRUST CAPITAL LIMITED (Application for interim injunction) [2023] NZHC 16

Citation

[2023] NZHC 16
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish any serious question to be tried on the pleaded causes: the evidence did not support a contractual term or representations that the Hannon Loan would be repaid from Unit R1 proceeds, the s176 claim was tenuous given credible marketing evidence, duress and dishonest assistance were not established, damages were an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience and overall justice favored the respondent.
22 Dec 2022

BEVERLEY v DRYLANDCARBON GP ONE LTD [2022] NZHC 3606

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3606
Court

High Court

Leave granted under s165 because the proposed derivative claims were at least arguable on the evidence (diversion of corporate opportunity, misuse of company information, breach of confidence and dishonest assistance), no company action to pursue them existed, the potential commercial value justified litigation against estimated costs, and a prudent business person would pursue the claims; s165(3)(a) threshold met and mandatory s165(2) factors satisfied.
25 Nov 2022

QU v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE PROPERTY OF ZENG [2022] NZHC 3114

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3114
Court

High Court

On the evidence and inferences available the Court was satisfied that Huimin Zhao dishonestly assisted Jun Zeng in relation to the Flagstaff Land Loans and Flagstaff Construction Loans and that she knowingly received trust property (established as $185,810); there was insufficient evidence to establish liability in relation to the $250,000 Misappropriated Funds; relief and quantification of loss and interest are reserved for further submissions.
2 Sept 2022

MATVIN GROUP LIMITED v CROWN FINANCE LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2239

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2239
Court

High Court

On the facts the parties proceeded from July–October 2013 in a manner consistent with a joint venture: Matvin performed developer due diligence and Crown engaged as funding/profit‑share participant. Crown owed fiduciary duties, breached them by misusing confidential information and enabling Viscount (a CAPG entity with the same director) to acquire 122 Hobsonville Road; Viscount knowingly/dishonestly assisted. Second defendant not shown to be liable. Appropriate remedy is an account of profits; further hearing ordered to quantify profits.
22 Dec 2021

RE STRAHL [2021] NZHC 3608

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3608
Court

High Court

The Court approved the Committee's proposed distribution methodology as fair and reasonable to the group as a whole and individually, subject to adjusting the Committee's merits-weighting between Class A and Class B claims from 75/25 to 67/33; the Committee's selection of 31 May 2010 as the knowledge date and its consultative process were rational and within its contractual discretion; indemnity costs were awarded to the objectors under r14.6(4)(f).
29 Oct 2021

WILLIAMS v TELLEN SYSTEMS NZ (2013) LTD [2021] NZHC 2916

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2916
Court

High Court

Costs were to be assessed separately for each proceeding. Increased costs were not justified because lack of success on factually intensive claims alone did not prove unreasonable conduct and the dishonesty allegations did not amount to unjustified pursuit. Scale 2B costs were awarded but reduced for duplication and for time on unsuccessful matters; expert costs were halved to reflect common evidence. Result: Mr Williams awarded 2B costs of $86,721 (with a set-off to reflect Tellen's award of $41,449.50), trustees awarded $75,763, and disbursements adjusted accordingly.