New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Henderson v henderson rule

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2023

ORION MARINE LTD v SEALEGS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2023] NZCA 315

Citation

[2023] NZCA 315
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the applicants identified an arguable error of law in the High Court's application of the Henderson v Henderson rule (as explained in Johnson v Gore Wood) that raises questions of general or public importance and because the interests of justice favour allowing the appeal given the applicants' potential hardship arising from the injunction and undertaking.
8 Nov 2022

WU v CHRISTCHURCH HIGH COURT [2022] NZHC 2916

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2916
Court

High Court

The proceeding was struck out as an abuse of process because the claims had been finally determined in consolidated proceedings (so collateral attack was impermissible), Mr Wu had no standing to resurrect or re-litigate Ms Fan's claims, and the sale of the property occurred pursuant to judicial sale directions (not under pt 17 enforcement requiring r17.72 notice), rendering the application meritless and plainly abusive.
29 Oct 2019

BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2745

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2745
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the High Court's treatment of the Henderson v Henderson principle is arguable: it may have over-emphasised plaintiffs' right of access to the Court and thereby confined application of the 'could and should' test; on balance the interests of justice warranted permitting an appeal from the strike-out refusal in the 2018 proceedings.
12 Feb 2019

GIBBSTON COMMUNITY WATER COMPANY 2014 LIMITED v TOMANOVICH HOLDINGS LIMITED [2019] NZCA 7

Citation

[2019] NZCA 7
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed; strike-out was not justified because there exists a genuine, bona fide dispute as to the true value of the water scheme requiring expert evidence, the rejection of the settlement offer did not demonstrate an improper collateral purpose, Mr Henderson's involvement did not alone amount to abuse of process, and the High Court judge had properly conducted a global merits-based assessment concluding, narrowly, the proceeding was not an abuse of process.
26 Jun 2012

DU V GU HC AK CIV-2009-404-5577

Citation

openlaw-599ed52b_986e_47e6_bd65_b5da3fd59b4a.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to amend to add causes of action under the Illegal Contracts Act, equitable restitution and promissory estoppel is denied. The denial is based on the need for finality and the Henderson v Henderson rule, the plaintiff's opportunity and delay in pleading after the defendant raised the s62/s63 defence, the weak legal merits and risk of undermining the policy of the Real Estate Agents Act, and the additional factual and expert inquiry and costs required. Plaintiff must file an amended claim limited to repayment (moneys had and received) within 10 working days and the matter is to be placed…
11 Aug 2009

CONTACT ENERGY LIMITED V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CA CA494/2008

Citation

openlaw-40cf2b10_cb51_43de_b743_639e48af8a8a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that invoices reissued under the contract's express reopening clause (cl 12.6.2) after PPI revisions gave rise to different, subsequently liquidated debts distinct from those determined in the 2001 proceedings; accordingly cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and the Henderson v Henderson rule did not bar the Crown's claims and summary judgment/strike out was inappropriate because factual disputes required trial.
4 Apr 2007

HENRY V BROOKFIELDS HC AK CIV 2005-404-3351

Citation

openlaw-7bb94c91_70db_4c5a_bdc1_08438e04e428.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that although the Henderson v Henderson rule could apply, on the facts and in balancing public and private interests the proceeding by Mr Henry against Brookfields did not reach the threshold of unjust harassment and should not be struck out; several arguable legal errors were identified (including a misstatement about indemnity) and the issues raised were of public and private importance warranting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
9 Mar 2006

RPNZ LTD V THE REAL ESTATE INSTITUTE OF NZ INC HC AK CIV 2005-404-976

Citation

openlaw-a1c03f3a_c7e3_4e30_a0f5_fc0d786eed07.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for pre-issue discovery under r301 was declined because RPNZ failed to establish more than a speculative possibility of a breach of confidence claim and failed to show it was impossible or impracticable to formulate the claim without the documents; there was no evidential foundation that REINZ used RPNZ's confidential information to develop software or services and the r301 necessity threshold was not satisfied.