New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Economic torts

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2022

MONNERY v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 2401

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2401
Court

High Court

Associate Judge Johnston did not misunderstand the plaintiffs' case; the documents sought for discovery were irrelevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded losses because the immediate victim of the alleged misuse of IP was the company, Convendium, and shareholders lack proprietary rights in company assets such that plaintiffs could not base their personal loss on the company's lost profits except in exceptional cases; accordingly the recall and leave to appeal applications were dismissed and leave to appeal the costs judgment was refused; costs awards to defendants on a 2B basis less 20% were confirm…
8 Aug 2022

EVEREST SERVICED APARTMENTS LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 511909 [2022] NZHC 1925

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1925
Court

High Court

Court held the Body Corporate waived privilege in the 15 November 2018 solicitor's letter by voluntary disclosure but refused to extend that waiver collaterally because the letter was not being deployed in the litigation, was disclosed pre-litigation, and maintaining privilege in related documents would not cause injustice or mislead the court; consequently further discovery was not ordered.
26 Oct 2021

MONNERY v PARSONS [2021] NZHC 2854

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2854
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' applications for further discovery were dismissed because the discovery sought was not relevant to the existing pleadings: plaintiffs did not plead any proprietary interest in Convendium's intellectual property and therefore, on the pleaded case, lack standing to seek documents showing defendants' profits from that property; accordingly additional discovery under r 8.19 was inappropriate until the plaintiffs replead; however the plaintiffs were ordered to provide discovery of their financial position and the applications for security for costs were adjourned pending repleading.
21 Apr 2021

THE VINTAGE AVIATOR LIMITED v DEMARCO [2021] NZHC 847

Citation

[2021] NZHC 847
Court

High Court

The Court struck out parts of the defendants' pleadings that directly contradicted factual determinations implicit in the jury verdicts under s47 Evidence Act 2006, and struck out multiple counterclaims alleging economic torts for failure to plead the essential elements of those torts as reasonably arguable causes of action; the Court declined to strike out company defences where solicitors later adopted them and entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the defendant's second counterclaim for breach of contract; discovery and a strict pre-trial timetable were ordered.
26 Jul 2013

NO 317 LIMITED v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1880

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1880
Court

High Court

The court held the defendant was justified in seeking security for costs and awarded the defendant costs of the security application fixed at $896 plus a $725 disbursement; the strike‑out and summary judgment applications were discontinued after the plaintiff amended its statement of claim to plead different torts and there is no order for costs in respect of those applications, with costs to lie where they fall.
5 Nov 2010

WING HUNG PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V SAITO OFFSHORE PTY LTD CA CA437/2009

Citation

openlaw-bb49a0da_26fc_4730_8e49_d6f9bb7c0574.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held r 6.29 requires a two-stage inquiry and that causes of action must be considered individually; the court may assume jurisdiction where one or more causes satisfy r 6.29(1)(a) and may order the plaintiff to amend pleadings to abandon causes that do not meet the tests rather than dismiss the entire proceeding; the 'all or nothing' approach is rejected and the court may grant leave or excuse failure to seek leave under r 6.29(1)(b) where appropriate.
15 Sept 2010

BELL AND ANOR V TINDALL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-544

Citation

openlaw-ab37a85a_fdce_4ba0_8d49_0953433147a1.pdf
Court

High Court

The statement of claim is struck out because it is plainly statute-barred under Limitation Act 1950 s4, the plaintiffs failed to establish an arguable basis under s28 to postpone accrual (no pleaded or evidenced wilful concealment/equitable fraud), the pleaded economic torts are untenable on the facts and prior final judgment estops the plaintiffs on essential issues; accordingly the pleadings disclose no reasonably arguable cause of action.

New Zealand Case Law

MONNERY v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 2401

EVEREST SERVICED APARTMENTS LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 511909 [2022] NZHC 1925

MONNERY v PARSONS [2021] NZHC 2854

THE VINTAGE AVIATOR LIMITED v DEMARCO [2021] NZHC 847

NO 317 LIMITED v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1880

WING HUNG PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V SAITO OFFSHORE PTY LTD CA CA437/2009

BELL AND ANOR V TINDALL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-544