New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation act 1950

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2021

DEO DATT SHARMA v NIRMALA WATI [2021] NZSC 107

Citation

[2021] NZSC 107
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the short delay produced no prejudice but the proposed appeal was clearly hopeless: the Limitation Act does not govern these enforcement proceedings, the $21,000 paid into Court was not security for costs, the charging orders and procedural route were properly handled, and there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice warranting leave.
21 Jan 2019

TAYLOR v ROPER [2019] NZHC 16

Citation

(2019) 24 PRNZ 373
Court

High Court

Because Roper succeeded at trial he was entitled to costs, but his denial of having committed the assaults (an issue on which he lost) significantly increased the plaintiff's time and expense; applying r 14.7(1)(d) a 50% reduction of scale costs was appropriate. Refusal of costs under r 14.7(1)(g) was not justified despite the reprehensible nature of the underlying conduct because costs are compensatory not punitive and exceptions must not swallow the rule. Accordingly Roper awarded 50% of Schedule 2B costs ($27,819.25) plus disbursements $220.
8 Nov 2018

WARD RANCH LTD v THE MINISTER OF CONSERVATION/TE PAPA ATAWHAI [2018] NZHC 2893

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2893
Court

High Court

The pleadings and further particulars aver that the actionable acts or omissions were the defendants' retention, maintenance and operation of the weir during Sept 2011–Sept 2017, so the Limitation Act 2010 applies and the claims were filed within six years; alternatively, even under the 1950 Act continuing or distinct damage within the six years could give rise to fresh causes of action. Therefore neither pleaded cause of action was time barred on the materials before the Court.
29 Aug 2017

TANIA JOY LAMB v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZSC 128

Citation

[2017] NZSC 128
Court

Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal held that the ACC appeal did not amount to an 'action' pursuing the exemplary damages claim because it involved a different respondent, cause of action and forum; therefore the exemplary damages claim was statute-barred and the High Court erred in granting an extension of time to seek review, so the strike out should be reinstated.
29 Nov 2016

THOMAS v MORRHALL [2016] NZHC 2853

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2853
Court

High Court

The Disputes Tribunal is a 'Court of law' for the purposes of s 4 of the Limitation Act 1950 because it possesses sufficient institutional and legal features (part of the District Court structure, formal filing and notification processes, hearings before independent adjudicators, enforceable orders and statutory requirements to have regard to the law) to fulfill the purposes of limitation statutes; accordingly a claim filed in the Tribunal is commenced for limitation purposes and the later transfer to the District Court does not render the claim time barred.
20 Oct 2016

CAPITAL + MERCHANT FINANCE LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED & ANOR [2016] NZHC 2512

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2512
Court

High Court

The proposed second amended statement of claim did not introduce a fresh cause of action but added new particulars (a further sub‑allegation of negligent failure to procure an independent review) to the existing contractual and tortious claims; applying the 'essentially different' test the amendment did not change the legal basis of the claim, was not time‑barred, and leave to file the amendment and supplementary expert evidence was granted in the interests of justice absent significant prejudice.
23 Aug 2016

JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZSC 110

Citation

[2016] NZSC 110
Court

Supreme Court

The application for recall was dismissed because the applicant's submissions did not demonstrate an error in law or fact sufficient to warrant recalling the earlier judgment and his limitation argument misconceived the operation of the Limitation Act 1950.
15 Dec 2015

SINGH v FOLEY [2015] NZHC 3226

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3226
Court

High Court

Given the 57 years since registration, the discharge of a related charging order in 1985 indicating the underlying debt was likely satisfied, the impracticality and prejudice of locating the respondent, and the Court's power under s 39 (with s 3 of the Repeal Act preserving jurisdiction), the Court exercised its discretion to discharge lien K68370 without imposing additional terms.
2 Oct 2015

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP & LIQUIDATION) v T M O'HALLORAN AND J C T DAVIS [2015] NZHC 2386

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2386
Court

High Court

Plaintiff's verified account and reply affidavit sufficiently established the debt and rebutted defendants' evidentiary challenges; the deeds of guarantee were enforceable and within the 12-year limitation period, communications between parties and lack of prejudice undermined laches, and no fairly arguable defence was shown — therefore summary judgment for the outstanding principal of $308,572.64 is entered, with determination of penalty interest deferred for further enquiry.
9 Dec 2014

SEA PROSPERITY LTD & ADAMS v UNKOVICH & QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD [2014] NZHC 3125

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3125
Court

High Court

Because the pleaded negligent advice caused the plaintiff to commit to inherently flawed contracts and incur present liabilities immediately upon following that advice, the cause of action accrued when the advice was given (February 2007); the claims are therefore time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950 and the proceeding is struck out.