New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest on money judgments

Legal area

Court

18 Aug 2023

PURUCKER v HUEBLER [2023] NZHC 2246

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2246
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the first defendant misappropriated $868,954.24 of the plaintiff's funds; she was liable for breach of fiduciary duty (where applicable) and for money had and received for the full misappropriated sum; the second defendant was jointly and severally liable for $155,127.29 (deposits into the joint account and cheques he cashed); and the separation agreement and certain transfers were entered to defeat creditors and are void under s 47(1) PRA.
2 Apr 2019

BAKER v BAKER [2019] NZHC 666

Citation

[2019] NZHC 666
Court

High Court

The settlement produced the substantive result sought by the plaintiffs (realisation of the value of their shares), so plaintiffs were the successful party entitled to 2B costs; claimed disbursements including the expert accountant's fees were specific, necessary and reasonable and were approved; defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs and disbursements totalling $53,944.32 and interest from the date of judgment; the Court declined to make personal liability or indemnity orders against the directors under s174 or otherwise.
26 Jul 2018

BLUMBERG v FRUCOR BEVERAGES LTD [2018] NZHC 1876

Citation

[2018] 3 NZLR 672
Court

High Court

The Court held each plaintiff incurred real mitigation expenses by hiring replacement vehicles from R2D and those expenses were reasonably incurred in the circumstances; defendants are liable to pay the full amounts invoiced by R2D to each plaintiff and interest as directed, and allegations that R2D lacked rights (subrogation/maintenance/champerty) or that plaintiffs suffered no loss because R2D bore the cost were rejected.
17 Apr 2018

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v ROBERTSON [2018] NZHC 696

Citation

[2018] NZHC 696
Court

High Court

The court held the Commissioner was entitled to recover the GST refunds from the liquidator under s301 because the liquidator misapplied and disbursed company funds in breach of his duties and despite the mandatory set-off under s310 which required retention; equitable defences including estoppel and change of position failed; interest awarded on the sums from the dates of payment subject to statutory caps.

New Zealand Case Law

PURUCKER v HUEBLER [2023] NZHC 2246

BAKER v BAKER [2019] NZHC 666

BLUMBERG v FRUCOR BEVERAGES LTD [2018] NZHC 1876

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v ROBERTSON [2018] NZHC 696