New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation and laches

Legal area

Court

5 May 2022

STAFFORD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZCA 165

Citation

[2022] NZCA 165
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused to order a blanket moratorium or a general duty requiring Ministers to direct Crown entities and SOEs to refrain from disposals; the Ministers' Reviewable Decision declining such a moratorium was lawful and reasonable in the administrative law context, and the enhanced Land Protection Mechanism and undertakings offered provided adequate interim protection. Substantive questions of breach, proprietary remedies and accounting remain for the High Court Trust Proceedings remitted by the Supreme Court.
16 Sept 2021

HOLT v DEMETRIADES [2021] NZHC 2437

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2437
Court

High Court

The discontinuing plaintiff must contribute to the defendant's costs per r 15.23; reasonable disbursements paid by a lay litigant are recoverable but must be limited and not exceed equivalent scale costs; the Court awarded $4,000 as recoverable disbursements for pre-representation solicitor fees (subject to affidavit proof of payment), $110 filing fee, and $10,252.60 for the legally represented period (legal aid-funded fees and disbursements), and refused the claimed 50% uplift and other excessive elements of the claim.
17 Dec 2020

Te Ara Rangatū O Te Iwi O Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Inc v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 3378

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3378
Court

High Court

The High Court exercised its discretion to quantify costs now because the Crown was the successful party, costs determinations should be predictable and expeditious, the substantive hearing and related steps were recent and fresh in the judge's mind, and there was no principled reason to defer quantification pending a likely lengthy appeal; specified category C awards were justified for particular interlocutory and preparation steps and costs were allocated as set out in the schedules.
12 Mar 2020

BURGESS v BEAVEN [2020] NZHC 497

Citation

[2020] NZHC 497
Court

High Court

The application to vest disclaimed litigation rights in the bankrupt is dismissed because the proposed causes of action are not reasonably arguable on the evidence and submissions: there is no demonstrable malice by the proposed defendants, the applicant caused or contributed to delay, the claim is stale and prejudicial to proposed defendants (reinforced by Supreme Court comments that apportioning blame would be unjust), and the Court should not facilitate meritless litigation by making a vesting order under s119.
3 Oct 2019

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2019] NZCA 479

Citation

[2019] NZCA 479
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal, concluding the High Court erred in restoring the companies under s 329: the applicants failed to provide the necessary factual material and explanation required for a s 329 application, the long unexplained delay and the risk of nugatory or perverse asymmetric tax outcomes meant restoration was not just and equitable, and the exercise of discretion was therefore set aside.
20 Dec 2017

BURGESS v MONK [2017] NZHC 3255

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3255
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs failed to prove any proprietary interest by constructive trust; the 1980 agreement was unenforceable as to CTE company formalities; Molly's 1998 will conferred discretionary powers on trustees not a binding precatory trust; trustees did not breach fiduciary or trustee duties in the conduct and sale and acted within discretion; sale to Armer Farms was at market value and Armer lacked constructive knowledge of any trustee breach; solicitors did not assume de facto trusteeship and did not breach fiduciary duties or negligence; all claims dismissed and defendants awarded costs.
13 Mar 2017

STAITE v KUSABS [2017] NZHC 416

Citation

[2017] NZHC 416
Court

High Court

Court found trustee E Moke breached fiduciary duty of loyalty by acting on both sides of the Tumunui lease negotiations; Tumunui Trust had knowledge of his dual role; statutory limitation did not bar relief because breach amounted to equitable fraud under Limitation Act s21(1); automatic rescission inappropriate but equitable rectification was ordered to remove the clause allowing deduction of improvements by predecessors (since 1961) so rent reviews exclude predecessors' improvements; boundary and easement relief reserved for Māori Land Court and Registrar processes; easement repair/maintena…
24 Jun 2016

HORSPOOL v GLAISTER ENNOR [2016] NZHC 1386

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1386
Court

High Court

Pre-commencement discovery was ordered under r 8.20 because the applicant demonstrated a real (non-speculative) potential claim for breach of fiduciary duty, it was impracticable to responsibly formulate the claim without the specified documents, and there were sensible grounds to believe the documents or their provenance were within the defendants' control or knowledge.
12 Apr 2013

LOVE V BATTERTON HC AK CIV-2012-404-2385

Citation

openlaw-9337b331_b607_4c31_a489_62ae088bf399.pdf
Court

High Court

Court exercised discretion to refuse the applicant leave to sue in place of the executor and to refuse joinder of Barnes because the evidence did not establish a pattern of conduct amounting to breach of fiduciary duty or unjust enrichment, significant payments by Barnes created dominant set-offs, the estate was insolvent, limitation and laches issues were real, and no special circumstances justified permitting the contested late litigation.
26 Jun 2012

PROPRIETORS OF WAKATU INCORPORATED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV-2010-442-181

Citation

openlaw-4df1ce18_e57e_4bd9_b061_5e1899d912b3.pdf
Court

High Court

The 1845 Crown Grant and surrounding historical materials did not establish the requisite certainty of intention to create the private law express trust alleged; the Crown was acting in a governmental/public capacity and contemporaneous arrangements and legislation (including the pathway to statutory administration of reserves) point to public trust/administrative regimes rather than a private endowment trust; resulting, institutional constructive trust and relational good faith claims were not supported on the facts or law; the plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the asserted fiduciary cla…