New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Issue estoppel/res judicata

Legal area

Court

10 Aug 2022

JONES v HAWKINS [2022] NZHC 1965

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1965
Court

High Court

Leave to issue third and subsequent party notices out of time was declined because although r 4.4(1)(c) and (d) (common issues and substantially same issues) could be engaged, the applicant was primarily responsible for prolonged and unexplained delay; the proposed conspiracy pleadings were speculative, lacking particularity and tenable foundation, risking abuse of process and serious prejudice and delay to the respondents' straightforward contractual claim; earlier interlocutory rulings and striking/staying of similar claims against many proposed defendants reinforced refusal to grant leave.
14 Apr 2021

SAIN v JOSEPH ERCEG [2021] NZHC 761

Citation

[2021] NZHC 761
Court

High Court

Summary judgment and strike‑out were inappropriate because the plaintiff's oral trust claim, though weak, was arguable and genuine factual and legal disputes remained that required full hearing and disclosure: the caveat ruling was interlocutory and did not estop full litigation; limitation did not bar the beneficiary's claim under Limitation Act 1950 s21(1)(b) (preserved by Limitation Act 2010 savings) and the question whether the statutory writing requirement is defeated by equitable fraud principles requires trial; laches could not fairly be determined without plaintiff evidence; pleadings…
20 Feb 2019

INSTALLER SERVICES (HUTT VALLEY) LIMITED v COLSON [2019] NZHC 210

Citation

[2019] NZHC 210
Court

High Court

Payments labelled 'shareholder salary' totaling NZD 44,800 were remuneration and not recoverable as distributions; other 'additional drawings' totaling NZD 81,000 were distributions and, on applying a 50% contingency for disputed franchise fees, the company would have been insolvent immediately after the 2012 distribution; accordingly NZD 19,943 (2012 additional drawings) is repayable by shareholder Andrew Colson under s56 and Mr and Mrs Colson are jointly and severally liable to contribute NZD 19,943 under s301 absent shareholder repayment; the 2013 distribution NZD 61,057 is permitted under…
17 Dec 2018

HOWARD v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2018] NZHC 3342

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3342
Court

High Court

The application for special leave was declined because it was filed outside the mandatory 21‑day period in s162(4) (no jurisdiction to extend); alternatively, even if timely, no arguable question of law arose because the applicant sought to relitigate issues finally determined in prior proceedings and the statutory provisions relied upon (ss117(3) and 117(3B)) did not support her case.
2 Nov 2018

Horne v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 173
Court

District Court

Issue estoppel applied: Judge Joyce's earlier judgment conclusively determined that the automotive parts salesperson work type was occupationally suitable for the applicant between the same parties and on the same issue, thereby precluding the applicant from re‑arguing that suitability in the s109 reassessment appeal; challenges to subsequent VIOAs are limited to new work types or where material changes in circumstances are shown.
8 Aug 2018

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation (Issue Estoppel)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 128
Court

District Court

The appeals are dismissed because the substantive issue (date from which interest on the 2006 and 2007 arrears should run) has been finally determined by earlier District Court judgments and the High Court's refusal of special leave; issue estoppel/res judicata preclude relitigation and the material relied on is not new or sufficiently credible/reliable to displace those conclusions, therefore there is no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
29 Jul 2016

Chalecki v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 202
Court

District Court

Although the appellant was entitled to seek deemed review decisions because ACC had not issued determinations, the claims for reimbursement of rehabilitation and transportation costs were insufficiently particularised. ACC was entitled and obliged to request particulars; absent those particulars no substantive entitlement could be identified or granted and there was therefore no unreasonable delay under s134(1)(b). The appeals are dismissed.
14 Jun 2016

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 172
Court

District Court

Leave was refused because the material advanced was not new or sufficiently probative to displace prior District Court determinations; the matters had been repeatedly considered and were barred by issue estoppel/res judicata; no evidence established deliberate nondisclosure by ACC or incapacity from the alleged date to give rise to interest under s114.
12 Apr 2013

DELIU V HONG HC AK CIV-2010-404-006349

Citation

openlaw-4a44ac64_07c4_4f55_adb5_83a17cc66663.pdf
Court

High Court

Application to strike out was dismissed. On the pleadings the abuse of process claim was tenable given pleaded particulars of ulterior purpose; the malicious prosecution claim could not be struck out because New Zealand law on malicious civil proceedings (outside insolvency) is unsettled and not a proper ground for pre-trial dismissal; Wilkinson v Downton claim was arguable because physical/psychiatric harm and calculated conduct were pleaded; defamation/malicious falsehood claims were not inevitably defeated by absolute or litigation privilege because some communications were arguably sent t…
7 Nov 2012

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 365
Court

District Court

The Court found that the 2001 review decision was limited in scope to incapacity to December 2000–March 2001 and did not preclude the Corporation or the Court from reassessing causation for later periods; on the evidence as it stood the later expert opinion (notably the orthopaedic assessment of Mr Gordon and pain specialists) established that the claimant developed a chronic pain syndrome causally related to the rib fractures sustained on 1 April 2000, therefore the Corporation's May 2003 determination was incorrect and is set aside; matter remitted to the Corporation to inquire into and com…