New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation of actions

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2020

HENNAH v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2020] NZHC 1232

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1232
Court

High Court

The application is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide the specific, mandatory information required by s329(1A) and the guidance in Commercial Management: no evidence of the ground for removal, inadequate explanation for not opposing removal, unjustified four‑plus year delay after the Commerce Commission findings, and lack of detail on remedying filing defaults, funding litigation, protecting unsecured creditors and providing security for costs; therefore it was not just and equitable to restore the company or to appoint the applicant as director.
19 Jul 2016

WOOLF v KAYE & Anor [2016] NZHC 1628

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1628
Court

High Court

Applications for defendant's summary judgment and strike out were dismissed because there are genuine disputes of material fact; it is reasonably arguable that s4(9) preserves the plaintiff's claim for specific performance and that s21(1)(a) may apply to the trust claim such that limitation and laches defences cannot be resolved on summary procedure; security for costs threshold was not met.
14 Apr 2016

BLACK AND ORS V LAGOON LODGES PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS [2016] NZCA 127_x000b_

Citation

[2016] NZCA 127
Court

Court of Appeal

On the pleaded facts and available material it was not plain and obvious that MDS Law could not have assumed duties to investors; the strike‑out on limitation grounds as to the 22 December 2006 payment was premature and the pleading must be restored to permit trial determination of whether MDS Law assumed such duties or whether limitation applies.
28 Feb 2013

CHIEF EXECUTIVE LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND V TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST AND FRIENDS OF MATAPOURI INCORPORATED COA CA67/2011

Citation

openlaw-a1aca5ec_1f70_47e6_b84f_8452f1944837.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Chief Surveyor's approval of DP 199214 in 1999 was made applying an insufficiently rigorous standard and therefore was legally reviewable and erroneous; the Surveyor-General was correct to refuse correction under s 52 in 2008 because the material did not meet the very high threshold required to overturn prior cadastral definitions; the Trust's private law claims in contract and trust were time-barred or lacked essential elements and therefore failed; costs in the High Court should lie where they fall except for specific Maori Land Court attendance costs, and no costs are ordered in this C…
21 Jun 2012

RHONA PATRICIA DOWNEY V CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON HC WN CIV-2011-485-2077

Citation

openlaw-da16d719_aa16_4c18_8b4d_d8c94821491e.pdf
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out because it disclosed no tenable cause of action and constituted an abuse of the court's process: the pleadings were incomprehensible and lacked necessary particulars, the factual basis for the majority of title claims was plainly untenable on investigation, the remaining claim lacked evidence of fraud and was time-barred, and the plaintiff lacked standing to advance estate claims.
11 Nov 2011

TAYLOR V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV 2010-404-6985

Citation

openlaw-8dad3f35_8762_4fc9_a52b_f04091770ca8.pdf
Court

High Court

1993 Segregation Claims were struck out as time-barred because the excessive delay (over 16 years) prejudiced the defendant's ability to mount a defence and no satisfactory excuse was given; 1998 Segregation Claims must be repleaded to clarify that plaintiff was not formally on BMR but alleges BMR-type conditions and require particulars before further strike out of s9 can be considered; Current Conditions Claims must delete s9 reliance and require statutory particulars for any breach of statutory duty; fiduciary claim re P119 purchases is struck out because no fiduciary relationship exists; p…
12 Sept 2011

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ECONICORP HOLDINGS LTD COA CA160/2011

Citation

COA CA160/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Majority held the strike out was inappropriate because it was arguable that the builder owed a duty of care to the Minister as owner; foreseeability and causal nexus were met and proximity and policy considerations could not be said, as a matter of law at strike-out stage, to conclusively negate a duty. Consequently the High Court's order striking out the Minister's claim was quashed.

New Zealand Case Law

HENNAH v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2020] NZHC 1232

WOOLF v KAYE & Anor [2016] NZHC 1628

BLACK AND ORS V LAGOON LODGES PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS [2016] NZCA 127_x000b_

CHIEF EXECUTIVE LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND V TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST AND FRIENDS OF MATAPOURI INCORPORATED COA CA67/2011

RHONA PATRICIA DOWNEY V CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON HC WN CIV-2011-485-2077

TAYLOR V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV 2010-404-6985

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ECONICORP HOLDINGS LTD COA CA160/2011