27 Aug 2020
Defendant had no defence to the claim; judgment was entered for the principal sum of $99,890, contractual interest at 18% from 1 April 2019 to 27 August 2020 totalling $25,320, and solicitor/client costs excluding GST of $6,921.64 plus agent's costs $350 (total $7,271.64).
29 Jul 2016
The advances constituted loans reduced to a principal of $1,165,000 (after set-offs); they were not non-recourse or forgiven; no agreement existed that interest would be payable, so s87(2) did not apply, but s87(1) authorized interest at the prescribed rate; CCCFA did not apply to bar recovery; accordingly defendants entitled to judgment for principal and statutory interest and to enforce the second registered mortgage and s119 notices.
28 Aug 2015
Award interest at the prescribed 5% per annum from the dates each cause of action accrued because the defendant had the benefit of the plaintiff's money, liability was undisputed, the plaintiff's one year delay was reasonable in context and the shareholders' dispute resolution clause did not displace the plaintiff's right to be compensated from accrual.
26 Jun 2015
The trustees had conferred a rent-free right of occupation on both trustees which was never revoked; derivative action was inappropriate because trustees were not given the opportunity to act and special circumstances were not established; however, by virtue of the shared possessory interest conferred by the trustees the parties stood in a position analogous to co-owners and each could claim occupation rent for periods of sole occupation by the other; the deed, read in context, allowed interest to be charged on demand though rate unspecified, and a 5% rate was appropriate; defendant's tort cl…
29 Feb 2012
Because the default judgment represented a judgment to which the respondent was not entitled and would never be entitled (a final disposition), the usual indulgence rule does not apply; accordingly costs were awarded to the successful appellant on the appeal, subject to quantified adjustments for the respondent's lost solicitor/client cost claim (assessed on a District Court 2B basis) and payable interest, and the District Court costs orders on the stay and set aside applications were quashed though not reversed so those costs lie where they fall.
16 Dec 2010
The High Court allowed the appeal only insofar as the Judge's valuation of the FDL shares lacked a proper evidential foundation and remitted valuation to the Family Court; all other factual findings (classification of specific credit card debts as non-relationship or shared as found, and that the trust loan was not outstanding and interest not owing) were supported by evidence and upheld, with the appellate court declining to disturb the primary factual findings.
9 Aug 2010
Section 140 of the 1981 Act did not apply because the claim to recover the fee was not made until after 1 August 2008; the 2006 Act and the 2008 Rules therefore govern and, even if s 140 applied, precedent (Findlay v Webb) dictates the same result. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the issues are primarily procedural, lack substantive merit, are proportionally unsuitable for a second appeal given the modest sums involved, and there are no compelling reasons to depart from existing authority.
21 Aug 2009
The court entered judgment for the plaintiff for $500,000 and exercised its discretion under s87 Judicature Act 1908 to award interest from 29 April 2005 at statutory rates (7.5% to 30 June 2008, 8.4% thereafter), subject to a right of set-off in favour of the defendant for any maintenance paid after 29 April 2005; sealing of judgment deferred one calendar month to permit set-off claim and orders for specific performance and costs reserved.
1 Aug 2008
Documentary evidence (written order specifying 3.0m panels, delivery receipt signed in good order, timing of the complaint) and conduct (partial retention to complete a building, request not to repossess all goods) showed no arguable genuine and substantial dispute; Rexon failed to establish a valid defence or an arguable counterclaim, so the statutory demand was upheld for the calculated sum and the application to set aside was dismissed.