New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Money had and received

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

SMART LIVING LIMITED v CONNORS [2023] NZHC 3709

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3709
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied there is a good arguable case on the pleaded causes of action, identifiable assets including the property sale proceeds and other assets up to $400,000, and a real risk of dissipation; accordingly a without‑notice freezing order and ancillary disclosure orders were justified to preserve assets and permit effective policing, and leave was granted to include the liquidated third defendant subject to liquidator consent or an application for leave.
28 Sept 2023

NORTHLAKE INVESTMENTS LTD v CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LTD [2023] NZHC 2715

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2715
Court

High Court

The adjudicator's determination was binding and enforceable under the Construction Contracts Act 2002; Civil was entitled to refer the Covid Claim and the Stage 12 Claim to adjudication (progress payment disputes are recoverable under the Act) and Northlake cannot recover payments made to satisfy a binding adjudicator determination as money had and received in the absence of a subsequent final determination disposing of the adjudicator's interim award; the specific contractual interpretation issue in cl 13.1.1 could not be finally determined on the summary application but the court was inclin…
31 Aug 2023

JIN v LUO [2023] NZHC 2417

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2417
Court

High Court

On the proved facts the plaintiffs established that W&L directly or indirectly contributed to the purchase, improvement or maintenance of Nicks Way, the Robinson Avenue sections, Seddon Road, Radnor Street and contributed finance/guarantees to Victoria Street such that equity imposes constructive or resulting trusts in favour of W&L in respect of those assets; the presumption of resulting trust for the $50,000 paid toward 12 Knox Street was rebutted on the evidence (it was repayment of an earlier loan), so Jin has no proprietary interest in Knox Street; the sole director (Luo) breached statut…
18 Aug 2023

PURUCKER v HUEBLER [2023] NZHC 2246

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2246
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the first defendant misappropriated $868,954.24 of the plaintiff's funds; she was liable for breach of fiduciary duty (where applicable) and for money had and received for the full misappropriated sum; the second defendant was jointly and severally liable for $155,127.29 (deposits into the joint account and cheques he cashed); and the separation agreement and certain transfers were entered to defeat creditors and are void under s 47(1) PRA.
17 Feb 2023

HE v CHEN [2023] NZHC 119

Citation

[2023] NZHC 119
Court

High Court

Application to strike out was dismissed. Although the proceeding endured significant delay and the plaintiff bore responsibility for a material portion of it, delay was not solely attributable to him and some relevant financial records exist; on balance justice could not be ruled impossible and it would be premature to strike out the claims before the plaintiff files briefs of evidence. The plaintiff was ordered to file briefs by fixed dates and the defendant's strike-out application refused; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's reasonable disbursements for the application to be fixed by the…
23 Nov 2022

QINGHUA MO v ZHE YANG [2022] NZCA 573

Citation

[2022] NZCA 573
Court

Court of Appeal

Where payments by appellants to purchase or develop property gave rise to a resulting trust, equity could impose a constructive trust to reflect the parties' reasonable expectations and to prevent unconscionable retention of legal title; accordingly Huxley Place and Ropata Avenue required constructive trust relief proportionate to appellants' contributions (with Ropata remitted for quantification), Bawden Road was governed by an express agreement (loan with partial interest) and IMCA is the default interest regime with s18 exceptions not engaged on the facts.
16 Nov 2022

NELSON HONEY & MARKETING (NZ) LIMITED v PUREALITY TRADING COMPANY LIMITED[2022] NZHC 2995

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2995
Court

High Court

The defendants established to the required standard that none of the plaintiff's pleaded causes of action were reasonably arguable: there was no contractual basis or guarantee binding the defendants for Horizon's debt, no evidence defendants received or were entitled to the disputed funds to sustain restitutionary remedies, and the negligence claim was unpled and unsupported; contemporaneous documentation and prior solicitor correspondence corroborated the absence of liability, therefore summary judgment for the defendants was entered.
14 Oct 2022

CLARK v CLARK [2022] NZHC 2665

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2665
Court

High Court

Leave for a second summary judgment application was refused because no special circumstances existed: the new cause of action and additional documents were available to the plaintiff at the time of the first application and do not amount to special circumstances; permitting a second application at this late stage would likely require resolution of disputed factual issues (sham/duress and gift allegations) more appropriately resolved at trial, would cause prejudice and delay, and be disproportionate. On particular discovery r 8.19, only four email attachments (GBC108, GBC115, GBC142, GBC264) w…
31 Aug 2022

SAFARI CONSTRUCTIONS (2005) LIMITED v CONCEPT BUILDERS QUEENSTOWN LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2387

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2387
Court

High Court

On a de novo on‑notice hearing the applicants met the onus: they demonstrated a good arguable case of fraudulent invoicing and related causes of action, identified assets within New Zealand, and established a real risk of dissipation by inference from the alleged sustained fraud and transfers to the director; the balance of convenience and overall justice therefore required continuation of the freezing orders.
18 Mar 2022

SETTLERS HONEY LIMITED v FIRST HONEY NZ LIMITED [2022] NZHC 518

Citation

[2022] NZHC 518
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was dismissed because the appeal did not have strong prospects given the factual basis of the summary judgment, First Honey had avenues to raise or secure funds and had caused its own predicament by spending the money, and on balance of convenience the interests of justice did not require a stay.