New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Full and frank disclosure

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2021

GREEN WAY LIMITED v MUTUAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3029

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3029
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because, although arguable errors were identified, the appeal was of only marginal significance to Green Way: the search yield had been secured and preserved with an independent solicitor and IT expert, discovery is being conducted under solicitors' obligations and court supervision, and the cost and likely delay of an appeal were not justified; accordingly leave under s56(3) was refused and costs awarded to the defendants.
28 Jul 2021

LEADERS HAWKES BAY LIMITED v ROXANNE PIENAAR [2021] NZHC 1925

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1925
Court

High Court

Leaders failed to make full and frank disclosure by not revealing that The Brand Guardian Ltd had provided the original workbooks before Pienaar's personal engagement and by creating the misleading impression that the workbooks were substantially based on Leaders' confidential information developed while employed; although a serious issue remained, the balance of convenience favored the respondent given the weakened evidential footing for Leaders, Pienaar's undertakings and conduct, so the without-notice interim injunctions were rescinded.
8 Jul 2021

GREEN WAY LIMITED v MUTUAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND OTHERS [2021] NZHC 1704

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1704
Court

High Court

All three without‑notice orders were rescinded because Green Way failed to comply with r 7.23 by not using Form G32 and certifying, and more importantly failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (notably correspondence showing the former employees had engaged solicitors and undertaken not to misuse information and statements about MCL's nature); the non‑disclosure was not innocent in the relevant sense and, had the court been fully informed, the urgent relief would likely not have been granted.
8 Jul 2016

TEXAS HEAT LTD v B & J INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD [2016] NZHC 1552

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1552
Court

High Court

The court found that omission to mention the registered Notice of Claim in the memorandum was a material omission but would not have changed the provisional assessment of risk informing the without notice freezing orders; other omissions (not summarising pleaded defences, minor inconsistency about partner/ex‑partner) did not mislead the court. Accordingly indemnity or increased costs were not warranted. The second defendant was awarded costs on a schedule 2B basis for steps up to but not including the hearing, plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
4 Dec 2013

VULCAN STEEL LIMITED v MCDERMOTT [2013] NZHC 3232

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3232
Court

High Court

On the facts the court exercised its discretion under the High Court Rules and refused costs to both parties: the plaintiff was not entitled to an order for costs following discontinuance and the defendant was not entitled to costs because the defendant's initial dishonest conduct and the broader circumstances justified refusing costs under r 14.7(g) and the court's general discretion under Part 14; accordingly both applications for costs were dismissed and no orders were made.
29 May 2013

MEDTRONIC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v GREGORY DALE FINCH [2013] NZHC 1253

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1253
Court

High Court

Because the further evidence established that the Trust funded the Parnell property and the company, not Finch personally, met mortgage obligations and there was no evidence of loans, gifts or other enforceable interests owing to Finch from the Trust, there was no basis to continue freezing orders against the Trust's assets; however, freezing orders were properly continued in relation to money held in bank accounts solely in Finch's name at ANZ Bank as those are his personal assets and there remained a risk of dissipation.
30 Sept 2011

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED V MJ BEATTIE & ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-003178

Citation

openlaw-dad04b05_bc8c_4197_9651_b7062386d26f.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to recall was declined because the corrigendum remedied the specific factual error identified in paragraph 53(e), there were no other very special reasons to justify recall under the established Horowhenua categories, and any substantive challenge to the refusal of the freezing order can be pursued on appeal.
17 Jul 2008

YANG V CHEN HC AK CIV 2007-404-1751

Citation

openlaw-2221c97b_924b_4750_b184_5c4068c9a770.pdf
Court

High Court

On a de novo consideration the plaintiffs established a good arguable case that the defendant held the companies' shares on trust and breached his fiduciary duties by treating the shares and company assets as his own, there is a real risk of dissipation of assets absent the mareva order, and the plaintiffs' deficiencies in disclosure were not such as to vitiate the order; accordingly the application to discharge the mareva injunction is dismissed.