New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Law reform act 1936 s17

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2018

LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY LIMITED v AON NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 568

Citation

[2018] NZHC 568
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because Aon demonstrated grounds under r 4.4 to claim contribution/indemnity from Colliers and Opus, the delay in applying for leave was reasonable in the context of obtaining and analysing valuers' discovery, and the interest of justice and efficiency in resolving all interrelated issues in a single proceeding outweighed the modest risk of trial delay and potential prejudice to LPC.
1 May 2012

COUTTS AND ANDERSON AS TRUSTEES OF THE BARLEY STATION TRUST V DAVENPORTS HARBOUR LAWYERS HC AK CIV-2011-404-4430

Citation

openlaw-b3584e03_1af9_45e9_98bf_485655c2db79.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying the narrow Royal Brompton approach as endorsed in Altimarloch, Davenports and the builders are not liable in respect of the same damage and do not share a coordinate liability of the same nature and extent; therefore contribution is unavailable under s17 and in equity and the third party notices must be set aside.
3 May 2010

FAIRVIEW PARK LTD V HARRISON GRIERSON CONSULTANTS LTD HC AK CIV 2006-404-006588

Citation

openlaw-6f36e1ca_56eb_4655_9ccf_ed347b29e228.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to set aside was refused because the pleadings disclosed a prima facie case meeting r 4.4(1), there was no basis to treat the plaintiff's indebtedness as defeating the contribution claim, and the contribution claim was sufficiently connected to the main proceeding such that the third party must remain for resolution of responsibility in the main trial.
22 Dec 2009

LANDO & ANOR V AMUR PROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-004518

Citation

openlaw-b2f644b2_218e_4df2_b3a8_8d7eb3383eab.pdf
Court

High Court

The ninth defendants were entitled to costs on the schedule 3 category 2 band B basis; however the court exercised r 14.1 discretion to reduce the claimed inspection allowance to $1,000 because the work actually done was minimal, and denied any order for contribution by the sixth defendant because the council's cross claim was contingent, it did not press a defence, and it did not cause the costs incurred by the ninth defendants.
23 Mar 2009

ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED V MOORHOUSE AND ANOR HC BLE CIV-2005-406-000091

Citation

openlaw-ad28a0b7_eb3e_4f09_a4d7_5eaae122903c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Moorhouses' liability for the plaintiff's loss is essentially contractual in nature as a statutory deemed warranty under s6 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (i.e. contractual in nature though arising from a misrepresentation), equitable contribution is available between parties who share a common liability even where liability types differ, and the $400,000 common liability between the Moorhouses and the MDC is to be apportioned equally ($200,000 each); judgment for the plaintiff of $1,055,907.16 is entered against the Moorhouses with specified contribution and indemnity orders.

New Zealand Case Law

LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY LIMITED v AON NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 568

COUTTS AND ANDERSON AS TRUSTEES OF THE BARLEY STATION TRUST V DAVENPORTS HARBOUR LAWYERS HC AK CIV-2011-404-4430

FAIRVIEW PARK LTD V HARRISON GRIERSON CONSULTANTS LTD HC AK CIV 2006-404-006588

LANDO & ANOR V AMUR PROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-004518

ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED V MOORHOUSE AND ANOR HC BLE CIV-2005-406-000091