New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mistaken payment

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2022

MOXHAM MILK LIMITED v CLARK [2022] NZHC 2729

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2729
Court

High Court

The Court found s 13 requirements satisfied, declined to look behind the District Court judgment because it was decided on the merits and not appealed, held the defendant remained personally liable because the payment was not received merely as an agent and was received with notice of irregularity, and exercised its discretion to adjudicate the defendant bankrupt; public interest in recovery and potential asset investigation supported the order.
25 Feb 2021

ANYSLEY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v THREE60DEGREES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 280 [25 February 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 280
Court

High Court

The Court found it reasonably arguable on the affidavit evidence that the $5,750 payment by DRH4 to the respondent was a mistaken overpayment and that the benefit of that payment was equitably assigned or otherwise available to Anysley so as to constitute a reasonably arguable counterclaim/credit; accordingly there was a genuine and substantial dispute as to the debt claimed and the statutory demand must be set aside.
28 Oct 2014

Northland Coastal Developments Limited v Twce (2014) Limited [2014] NZHC 2638

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2638
Court

High Court

Proceeding should have been issued in the District Court; costs therefore limited to District Court recoverable amounts. Increased costs (uplift) were not justified because the plaintiffs relied on pre-issue conduct to justify uplift and did not meet the criteria in r14.6(3). However, the defendant should not receive any allowance for costs of its costs submissions given its conduct in initially retaining moneys it had no entitlement to.
8 May 2012

STIASSNY v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 21/2012

Citation

STIASSNY v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 21/2012
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted limited to whether the GST payment was a debtor-initiated payment under s95 PPSA conferring priority to the Commissioner and whether appellants can recover the GST from the Commissioner on the basis the receivers paid under a mistaken belief of personal liability; the respondent may rely on the alternative ground that the receivers were personally liable.
20 Aug 2008

EUROTECH AUDIO V TECHAUDIO HC AK CIV 2008-404-002482

Citation

openlaw-e9b3b1b7_5404_4e6b_9786_927db0820db5.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that TechAudio's set-off under the Set-Off Act 1735 extinguished Eurotech's claim to the balance of the mistaken Volkswagen payment; Eurotech's proposed constructive trust claim and late enlargement/joinder were untimely and unnecessary; accordingly judgment was entered for TechAudio and the interim injunction discharged.

New Zealand Case Law

MOXHAM MILK LIMITED v CLARK [2022] NZHC 2729

ANYSLEY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v THREE60DEGREES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 280 [25 February 2021]

Northland Coastal Developments Limited v Twce (2014) Limited [2014] NZHC 2638

STIASSNY v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 21/2012

EUROTECH AUDIO V TECHAUDIO HC AK CIV 2008-404-002482