New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misrepresentation and deceit

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2018

ALLIGATORS FAST FOOD LIMITED v YEN WEI CHEN [2018] NZHC 587

Citation

[2018] NZHC 587
Court

High Court

Court struck out plaintiffs' personal claims in contract, deceit and contractual misrepresentation as statute-barred (events accrued in 2009–2010) and struck out one cause that disclosed no tenable cause; held claims for misappropriation of company assets and breach of directors' duties are not amenable to strike-out because fiduciary/trust exception, recent events and potential restoration orders could avoid limitation bars; plaintiffs must either obtain s165 leave and pursue a derivative claim in the District Court (with s328(6) application if needed) or amend and pursue a s174 oppressive c…
14 Apr 2015

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2015] NZHC 517

Citation

[2015] NZHC 517
Court

High Court

Satchwell J's findings that the parties were partners and that substantial worldwide partnership assets existed were necessary groundwork to her decision to void the global indemnity for deliberate misrepresentation; those determinations produce issue estoppel in New Zealand preventing the defendant from denying the partnership or the existence of the listed partnership assets, entitling the plaintiff to a summary account and permitting an interim payment (USD25,000,000) as just on the balance of probabilities.
27 Mar 2015

WARRINGTON v AIG INSURANCE LTD [2015] NZHC 408

Citation

[2015] NZHC 408
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because material facts relevant to whether the plaintiff was a permanent New Zealand resident at the relevant times and other central factual disputes meant the defendant had tenable defences; issues of affirmation and alleged representations required full factual inquiry and direct evidence, so plaintiff failed to show there was no tenable defence.
18 Dec 2012

B AND T BLIND SPECIALISTS ROTORUA LIMITED V PEPPER HC ROT CIV-2011-463-580

Citation

openlaw-76df2a32_1cbd_4799_b3d6_09906cf82324.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to potentially admit into evidence common-bundle documents despite non-compliance with r9.14(4)-(5) by applying r9.14(6) where admitting them would not materially prejudice the plaintiff, but refused to permit the defendant to re-open his closed case to give further oral evidence on central pleaded matters because that would unjustifiably assist the unrepresented defendant and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff; assistance to lay litigants is limited and does not extend to fundamentally remaking a party's case after closure.

New Zealand Case Law

ALLIGATORS FAST FOOD LIMITED v YEN WEI CHEN [2018] NZHC 587

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2015] NZHC 517

WARRINGTON v AIG INSURANCE LTD [2015] NZHC 408

B AND T BLIND SPECIALISTS ROTORUA LIMITED V PEPPER HC ROT CIV-2011-463-580