New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

High court rules r 1.20

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2022

SWIFT v GRAY [2022] NZHC 1794

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1794
Court

High Court

The decisive legal conclusion was that both causes of action depended on the same core factual issue — whether Brian intended in 2012 to create a trust for the plaintiff — such that the first and second defendants share a community of interest in the subject matter for r 1.20(2) purposes; accordingly there was no disqualifying conflict and Robertsons may continue to act for both defendants without court leave.
4 May 2020

LANDMARK PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED v SHEN EMPIRE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 893

Citation

[2020] NZHC 893
Court

High Court

Because a body corporate owes an overarching duty to treat unit holders even‑handedly and therefore cannot share the requisite community of interest with individual unit holders on the disputed covenant/levy issues, Rainey Law and Tim Rainey, acting for the body corporate and for other defendants without court leave, were ineligible to continue acting for those other defendants under High Court Rule 1.20(2) and professional conduct rules; the court therefore restrained them from acting for any defendants in the proceeding.