New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mediation

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2023

CRICHTON v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2023] NZHC 3131

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3131
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out because the pleaded allegations against the Ministry either concerned matters and third parties unrelated to the Ministry or comprised complaints made by the plaintiff arising from her employment which were fully and finally settled at mediation and thus barred from re‑litigation; the plaintiff did not plead actionable privacy breaches nor particularise fraud sufficient to rescind the settlement, so the claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process under r15.1.
3 Jun 2022

TUV v CHIEF OF NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE [2022] NZSC 69

Citation

[2022] NZSC 69
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that, in the employment jurisdiction, settlement agreements certified under s 149 ERA are governed by the ERA framework such that the common law rule in O'Connor v Hart applies: a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party had actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity (or equitable fraud is shown). The Court held s 108B PPPRA does not displace that ERA scheme for s 149 certified settlements in the present context, and accordingly the settlement was not set aside because the respondent lacked actual…
21 Oct 2021

MACNAMARA v MACNAMARA [2021] NZHC 2829

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2829
Court

High Court

The informal application for a direction that the parties proceed to mediation was declined; the judge did not order mediation at that stage and reserved fuller reasons to be provided later.
27 Feb 2020

PARSONS v O’CONNOR [2020] NZHC 313

Citation

[2020] NZHC 313
Court

High Court

A stay of Gordon J's orders was granted because the first and third defendants gave a clear undertaking not to sell or otherwise dispose of the shares pending determination of their application to rescind or vary the orders, which preserved the status quo and removed the specific risk Gordon J sought to prevent; requiring immediate transfer would impose administrative burdens and risk needing to be undone; on balance the convenience favored a stay pending a full hearing.
11 Feb 2020

TUV v CHIEF OF NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE [2020] NZCA 12

Citation

[2020] 2 NZLR 446
Court

Court of Appeal

S 149 does not operate as a statutory bar to setting aside a settlement that is void or voidable for reasons such as incapacity; the orthodox two‑limb test of O'Connor v Hart applies in the employment context so a settlement entered into by an incapacitated employee is voidable only if the employer knew or ought to have known of the incapacity; on the facts the employer did not know and the settlement was therefore binding.
26 Nov 2018

BILLINGTON v MORTON ANOR [2018] NZHC 3084

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3084
Court

High Court

The application for recall was dismissed because the alleged omission (non-use or non-filing of a supplementary submission) did not disclose any relevant matter of such consequence that it would have altered the costs conclusion; the matters raised were principally substantive issues from prior Trustee Act and Family Court proceedings not material to the costs appeal, and therefore did not meet the high threshold required for recall.
20 Nov 2018

LUSTY v MAGILL [2018] NZHC 3006

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3006
Court

High Court

The District Court's summary claim for legal fees falls within the scope of the partnership arbitration clause because the indemnity agreement is intertwined with and a development of the partnership deed; there is a bona fide dispute as to the amounts and accounts, so under art 8 sch 1 Arbitration Act 1996 the proceedings must be stayed and the parties referred to mediation and, if necessary, arbitration.
27 Sept 2017

NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LTD v AUCKLAND TRANSPORT [2017] NZHC 2355

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2355
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Environment Court's costs decision: the Environment Court gave sufficient reasons for its $155,000 award, properly exercised the wide discretion conferred by s285 RMA, was not required to apply PWA principles, was entitled to disallow costs relating to Court‑assisted mediation, and to treat expert fees as discretionary; the quantum fell within acceptable bands and was not plainly wrong.
19 Sept 2017

Milne v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 114
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrated the appellant was fit to perform the clerical duties she held when the injury arose and no medical evidence linked the covered injury to incapacity; the appellant failed to discharge the onus to show the Corporation's decision was incorrect.
24 Apr 2017

ROUND v ROUND – COSTS [2017] NZHC 765

Citation

[2017] NZHC 765
Court

High Court

Costs follow the event under r14.2(a) of the High Court Rules; the defendant's offer to mediate did not displace that principle; post-trial conduct was irrelevant to the costs determination; two minor mathematical errors in the plaintiff's calculations were corrected, resulting in an awarded costs sum of $60,246 to the plaintiff.