New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation defences

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2023

BODY CORPORATE 207624 v GRIMSHAW & CO [2023] NZHC 979

Citation

[2023] NZHC 979
Court

High Court

Grimshaw & Co owed Body Corporate 207624 a continuing duty from the Unit Titles Act 2010 commencement to review and advise the Body Corporate on the CDA; Grimshaw breached that duty by failing to advise on the legal risks and necessary amendments (notably allocation to Body Corporate and treatment of former owner claims); that breach caused foreseeable losses: interpleader costs and an 18-month delay to remedial works leading to specified increased repair-related costs; some claimed heads were rejected as caused by other effective causes; final quantum to be calculated by parties under court-…
31 Mar 2023

MATHIAS v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2023] NZHC 705

Citation

[2023] NZHC 705
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact in the November 2022 interlocutory judgment; the proposed substantive variation of the agreed class was not within the scope of the reserved leave, would risk prejudice to the defendant's limitation defences and create conflicts between class members, and the contested notice, personal service and opt-in period decisions were legitimate case-management choices not plainly wrong; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave.
22 Mar 2023

NELLIES v MARK [2023] NZHC 584

Citation

[2023] NZHC 584
Court

High Court

Leave to file amended pleadings granted; defendants entitled to further discovery of documents relating to the company's and liquidator's litigation and non‑litigation costs because those documents are relevant to quantification of any s301 order and may bear on limitation defences; earlier interlocutory judgment did not finally determine limitation defences and therefore did not preclude discovery; consequential pre‑trial directions and timetable were ordered.
2 Nov 2022

SIMONS v ANZ BANK NZ LTD [2022] NZHC 2842

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2842
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the ANZ plaintiffs raised reasonably arguable errors of law of significant consequence to a large group of affected class members; the Court found that although the issue lacked broad public importance, the scale of impact, the arguability of the legal points and the interests of justice supported granting leave to appeal the interlocutory decision that post‑amendment plaintiffs could not represent customers who entered loans before 6 June 2015, noting a reduced threshold due to the substantive effect of the decision.
3 Jun 2022

DARYN TURVEY v DAVID VANCE [2022] NZHC 1167

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1167
Court

High Court

The Court rectified the 2001 deeds to reflect the settlors' intention, applied the established s133 'blessing' framework and found the trustee's proposed distribution and quantified adjustments were within the range of reasonable decisions on the evidence (relying on valuer and builder reports and Dobson J's directions). The $65,050 advance was treated such that repayment was recognised in distribution calculations but, because of limitation and notional settlor risk, Daryn's personal entitlement must be held in trust for his daughters until age 18; the s126 application was dismissed.
16 Dec 2021

ROSS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3497

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3497
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue was granted because the proposed discontinuance constituted a fair and reasonable resolution of the representative claims as a whole: the Deed implements a Package that materially addresses the deficiencies identified in Dodds, provides class members with concrete remedies and processes, is supported by the defendant and the Crown, and is subject to court‑imposed conditions enhancing independent oversight, transparency and reporting (IOC engagement, a Package review process with Terms of Reference, periodic POPP dashboard filings and an 18‑month limitation undertaking).
7 Sept 2021

BODY CORPORATE 384825 v QUEENSTOWN LAKE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 2327

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2327
Court

High Court

Court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to update quantum and to add Building Code clause E1 to Defect 3 and granted leave to file four supplementary briefs because (1) parts of the proposed amendments were properly characterised as updating; (2) where a new methodology was used the change was justified by unforeseeable market forces (notably COVID-19) and recent information; (3) any prejudice to the Council was not irremediable and could be managed by case management measures (timetable adjustments, possible bifurcation); and (4) supplementary briefs were either updating or limit…
22 Jun 2021

FARRELLY v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1493

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1493
Court

High Court

The court ordered further sworn answers to interrogatory 5(a) from non-original owners (excluding the 18th, 21st, 32nd, 34th, 35th and 38th plaintiffs) because terms of sale and purchase and any assignments are relevant to limitation and quantum and are not burdensome to answer; it ordered further sworn answers to interrogatory 5(d) from all plaintiffs because each owner must identify the respects in which their unit was incomplete at commencement; it dismissed the application as to interrogatories 5(i)–(o) because those questions would improperly require each plaintiff to provide a comprehen…
21 May 2021

BODY CORPORATE 384825 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1157

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1157
Court

High Court

Where a defendant answers detailed multi‑allegation complaint paragraphs with bare denials that do not fairly and substantially answer the allegations, and given the advanced stage and evidential exchange in this complex building case, the court will order further and better particulars to identify which defects, breaches, damages, repairs and loss items are admitted or denied and to particularise certain limitation and notice allegations; but the court will not require defendants to set out alternative repair plans or audit each plaintiff invoice.
17 Dec 2020

TAYLOR v MILES [2020] NZHC 3391

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3391
Court

High Court

Leave under s76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 was granted because the claim was not clearly unsustainable, involved allegations of dishonesty/equitable fraud and would not prejudice other creditors; the valid contractual relationship was the standard-form NRL Accredited Player Agent Contract, the Second Athlete and Manager Contract (14 March 2013) was set aside as an unconscionable bargain induced by undue influence and is void, the defendant breached fiduciary duties and the NRL contract and engaged in misleading/deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act, the defendant is disentitled to a…