New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misnomer

Legal area

Court

29 May 2020

3I INNOVATION LIMITED v BLACK MAGIC DESIGN STUDIO LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1173

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1173
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because 3I established a real and substantial dispute as to whether it ever contracted with BMDSL (evidence showed dealings were plausibly with Mr Sterling personally and BMDSL was struck off/restored and treated as dormant), and 3I also demonstrated arguable counterclaims and disputes (conditional bonus not triggered and wrongful retention of IP), satisfying the s 290(4)(a) threshold so the demand should not stand.
11 Mar 2020

SECURE FUNDING LTD v ASAUA [2020] NZHC 432

Citation

[2020] NZHC 432
Court

High Court

The court applied r 11.10 and the misnomer principle and corrected the defendant's misspelt name because the statement of claim and incorporated documents made the defendant's identity clear, and the correction caused no injustice allowing the order to be amended without notice.
23 Apr 2018

TURRALL v BLUETT [2018] NZHC 760

Citation

[2018] NZHC 760
Court

High Court

The court applied r 11.10 and authorities on misnomer and concluded that the spelling of the first respondent's middle name was a clerical error capable of summary correction because the respondent's own affidavit made clear he was the intended party; accordingly the sealed judgment could be corrected to substitute 'Brian Grayham Bluett' for 'Brian Graham Bluett' without injustice.
16 Feb 2012

CREATIVE ORGANISM LIMITED V BLINK INTERACTIVE LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-007545

Citation

openlaw-38748d25_a3e3_40ad_acd7_45cd8225ed07.pdf
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside by consent; applicant was the successful party and entitled to costs on the usual scale 2B but not to increased or indemnity costs because the applicant failed to particularise the disputed invoices and reconcile the alleged overcharging to the sum claimed; there was no basis to order costs against the respondent's solicitors and the Court lacked power to transfer the proceeding to the Disputes Tribunal.
25 Sept 2007

SCI FINANCE LTD V BORIS VAN DELDEN AND DENNIS JOHN WOOD (AS LIQUIDATORS OF DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LTD) HC AK CIV 2007-404-5338

Citation

openlaw-80004a9d_ab2f_4752_885d_936ec534e987.pdf
Court

High Court

Where misnaming is a technical misnomer causing no prejudice and the liquidators were placed on notice as custodians and agents of the company, the Court will grant retrospective leave under s248 and amend the defendant's name so that the proceeding is effective from the original filing date and will grant limited interim relief preventing the caveats from lapsing to allow prompt substantive determination.

New Zealand Case Law

3I INNOVATION LIMITED v BLACK MAGIC DESIGN STUDIO LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1173

SECURE FUNDING LTD v ASAUA [2020] NZHC 432

TURRALL v BLUETT [2018] NZHC 760

CREATIVE ORGANISM LIMITED V BLINK INTERACTIVE LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-007545

SCI FINANCE LTD V BORIS VAN DELDEN AND DENNIS JOHN WOOD (AS LIQUIDATORS OF DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LTD) HC AK CIV 2007-404-5338