New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loss of profits

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2020

DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED v PICKERING [2020] NZHC 2705

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2705
Court

High Court

The Court awarded actual componentry and labour costs attributable to the defendants' failure to deliver the jointly developed system, deducting amounts plaintiffs were contractually obliged to reimburse; componentry recoverable was $117,350.59 and labour recoverable was $122,725, totaling $240,075.59; loss of profits was rejected as speculative and not proven on the required evidential basis.
16 Mar 2012

SOHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED V RAHAT FATEY ALI KHAN HC AK CIV-2012-404-001415

Citation

openlaw-73f12866_7aff_4318_a10b_38c273c4f042.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because on the material before the Court there was no good cause of action for the claimed loss of profits given the contract limited liability and lacked evidential support for expenses, and there was no probable cause to believe the respondent would leave New Zealand to evade payment.
13 Jul 2011

THE BABY HAMMOCK CO LIMITED V AJ PARK LAW HC AK CIV-2008-404-3581

Citation

openlaw-2cdc2ac5_6632_458a_8c9d_66e965f86ec7.pdf
Court

High Court

Court found AJ Park was not negligent because BHC never instructed AJ Park to advise on the C-shaped stand or the flexible spreader bar and those items were not discussed at the critical meeting; AJ Park did not breach fiduciary duty by acting for Hushamok as no disclosable information relevant to BHC was used nor were BHC's IP rights impaired by Hushamok's registrations; causation failed because BHC could not show the alleged breaches would have produced the claimed financial outcomes; claim dismissed.
29 Oct 2009

NEW ZEALAND STEEL LIMITED V INDUCTOTHERM PTY LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-007044

Citation

openlaw-86a2fe37_4f40_4353_af22_c1638ef6ec08.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed Inductotherm's broad applications for further particulars and extensive discovery as lacking sufficient relevance and being oppressive or confidential, but ordered limited, targeted further disclosure and variation of the timetable (including delivery of an amended statement of claim, verified lists of documents and a without prejudice forensic expert report) because the applications had elicited narrow cooperation; the Hatch Model and broad operational/financial records were not discoverable on the material before the Court.
4 Dec 2007

BROWNSONS HOLDINGS (1999) LIMITED AND ORS V THE PLAZA PAKURANGA LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-1113

Citation

openlaw-6c1c58b2_afe5_4041_9cf1_b3aa646e498e.pdf
Court

High Court

Application to call further evidence to change the basis of quantum from the trial loss-of-profits model to a separate actual-loss model was refused because the plaintiff had advanced and litigated its claim on Table 1, commercial parties were properly advised, nothing unexpected arose from the judgment, and permitting the broad change would unfairly prejudice the defendant and undermine finality; limited evidence is allowed only to adjust the existing Table 1 figures as identified by the Court.
28 May 2007

EMBROIDERY SPECIALISTS (2005) LTD V EMBROIDERY SPECIALISTS WELLINGTON (1991) LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2005-485-1071

Citation

openlaw-e6755a42_afed_4b49_88e2_e5b22208d8a7.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that (1) the plaintiff must discover its accountant's working papers and correspondence relating to annual and tax accounts and GST and tax returns as those documents are relevant under the Peruvian Guano test; (2) the plaintiff must discover communications with customers and potential customers, including quotations that did not result in orders, as relevant to the asserted loss of turnover and restraint of trade allegations; (3) inspection of those discovered documents is to be limited to solicitors, counsel and the first to third defendants' expert accounting witnesses only,…
4 Jul 2006

TELECOM NZ LTD V AMP NZ PROPERTY COMMERCIAL LTD & ANOR HC WN CIV-2004-485-613

Citation

openlaw-7785f662_9b30_4df3_b3b5_848c4797d2a0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the specified interrogatories were both relevant to matters in question and necessary under r 282(2) and r 284 because they test causation, mitigation, contributory negligence and the quantification of the plaintiff's large loss of profits claim; accordingly the plaintiff was ordered to answer and verify the listed interrogatories and file verified answers with the Court.
31 Mar 2006

JIAN HUA PROPERTY LIMITED V FREEMONT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC AK CIV 2005-404-5526

Citation

openlaw-67cfbb4f_3752_4a6f_a4b2_3482a6c7a5a8.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Court found that only $48,252.53 was owing after disallowing certain items and deducting a prior payment, Jian Hua did not meet the legal test to be the successful party for costs in an application to set aside a statutory demand; costs follow the event and Freemont, as the prevailing party, is entitled to costs; the original costs order of 6 March 2006 stands.
18 Oct 2005

AIRWORK (NZ) LIMITED AND ANOR V HELIVENTURES LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2004-409-2944

Citation

openlaw-4b2a547c_f6c3_41e5_b4a7_08ec8211b484.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted plaintiffs' applications in part: the booking diary is discoverable and an unedited copy is to be disclosed to the defendant's solicitors, the defendant's CEO and the plaintiffs' expert limited to details of lost bookings for 24 July 2003 to 4 November 2003; ordered production of specified parts of the insurer/indemnifier file; ordered targeted particular discovery of the source material provided to the defendant's expert and trading/financial and operational records relating solely to the helicopter for defined periods to allow testing of the loss of profits claim; set dead…