New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim payment

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2023

VENKATASWAMY v KODOOR [2023] NZHC 2419

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2419
Court

High Court

The defendants' application for a stay is refused because the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff: defendants have not demonstrated that enforcement would render any appeal nugatory, they are able and sufficiently resourced to pursue recovery in California if successful on appeal, and the plaintiff faces significant and immediate hardship; accordingly the NZ$400,000 interim payment held in trust is to be released and specific security payments applied or returned as ordered.
14 Aug 2023

ICL CONSTRUCTION (2016) LIMITED v IAN ROEBUCK CRANE HIRE LIMITED [2023] NZCA 364

Citation

[2023] NZCA 364
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the challenge to the District Court's exercise of discretion under r 1.8(2) was not capable of bona fide and serious argument given ICL's failure to plead particulars, the prejudice to Roebuck, and the rules' objective to ensure just, speedy and inexpensive determination; no public or sufficient private interest justified further appeal over the relatively small sums involved.
1 Feb 2023

VENKATASWAMY v KODOOR [2023] NZHC 55

Citation

[2023] NZHC 55
Court

High Court

Costs were reserved to the substantive hearing because the strike out application had not been finally determined, the defendants might still oppose and rely on the affidavit at trial, the plaintiff did not provide invoices to demonstrate actual indemnity costs, and there remained procedural and evidential issues (including that some evidence was by memorandum not affidavit) warranting resolution at the substantive hearing.
19 Dec 2022

ICL CONSTRUCTION (2016) LIMITED v IAN ROEBUCK CRANE HIRE LIMITED (LEAVE TO APPEAL – REISSUED AFTER RECALL) [2022] NZHC 3440 [19 December 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3440
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because ICL failed to identify a seriously arguable question of law of general importance warranting a second appeal; the District Court lawfully exercised its power under r 1.8(2) to exclude evidence inconsistent with ICL's pleaded defence and representations to the Court, exclusion was appropriate in context, interim payment and interest orders were within jurisdiction, and ICL lacked a sufficient bona fide interest given its financial position and prior adverse rulings.
20 Oct 2021

THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL DAVID KIDD by its administrator BRYAN JOHN COOPER v VAN HEEREN [2021] NZHC 2805

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2805
Court

High Court

The Court granted a partial stay: payment of certified litigation expenses incurred by either party in the New Zealand proceeding was stayed pending determination of the parties' appeals because the balance of convenience favored withholding those disbursements to avoid rendering appeals nugatory and to reflect the parties' equal claims to partnership assets; however, certified offshore enforcement expenses sought by Mr Kidd were not stayed to permit prospective enforcement steps. Costs of the stay applications were to lie where they fell.
6 Oct 2021

THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL DAVID KIDD by its administrator BRYAN JOHN COOPER v VAN HEEREN [2021] NZHC 2661

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2661
Court

High Court

The court held the registry transfer request made before the judgment was sealed constituted a 'step on a judgment' requiring prior leave and was therefore impermissible, and that communications with the court/registry that make representations on procedure or substance must be copied or advised to other parties so the unilateral transfer without notice breached the court's processes; consequently the applicant is entitled to interlocutory relief and further orders against the funder require a separate hearing; a partly redacted funding negotiation document is subject to privilege and need no…
17 Jun 2021

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2021] NZHC 1414

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1414
Court

High Court

The court held the proper law of the partnership is South African law; the partnership was dissolved by implication from cessation of joint business on or about 18 January 1991 but, under South African law, former partners remained co‑owners of partnership assets pending realisation and distribution and therefore plaintiff retained a proprietary/co‑ownership claim (not merely a pre‑existing debt) enforceable by mutual accounting; the Genan share sale did not operate to transfer partnership assets to van Heeren; residential family homes were not partnership assets; given incomplete records the…
25 Jul 2019

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2019] NZHC 1761

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1761
Court

High Court

Fogarty J's 2015 disclosure orders remained unperformed and the defendant's and the foundations' disclosures were inadequate; the High Court therefore granted the plaintiff's application and ordered the defendant to provide a complete list of all assets in which he had an interest since January 1991, to exercise all powers at his disposal to obtain required information from the Gerda and Timbavati Foundations and other entities, and to obtain independent certification that all available steps were exhausted, because the Court has power to compel such steps to secure effective disclosure and c…
19 Aug 2016

VAN HEEREN v KIDD [2016] NZCA 401

Citation

[2016] NZCA 401
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the South African High Court's findings that the parties were partners and that the disputed assets were partnership property were essential, factual and legal steps in the reasoning that led that court to declare the indemnity void for misrepresentation/iustus error; those determinations therefore give rise to issue estoppels precluding relitigation of those issues in New Zealand.
14 Dec 2015

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2015] NZHC 3191

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3191
Court

High Court

The Court held that complexity and significance of the proceeding are relevant when assessing increased costs under r14.6(3)(a); the Court may have regard to actual time spent as an indicator of what is reasonable but is not bound by actual hours or by scale allowances; scale time bands do not anchor or cap awards under r14.6(3)(a). Applying those principles to the facts the Court awarded increased costs to the plaintiff (costs on a 3C basis with increases), allowed specific increased time allowances for key steps (notably 50 days for filing the interlocutory application including affidavits…