New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-disclosure

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2023

MAQBOOL v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 632

Citation

[2023] NZHC 632
Court

High Court

The alterations (installation of a second kitchen and partitioning that resulted in two separately occupied residential units) constituted a material change of circumstances that a prudent insurer would consider when fixing premium or deciding whether to insure; the insureds knew of or ought to have known of the alterations and failed to disclose them at renewal, therefore the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy (effective from the 2011 renewal) and the plaintiffs' claim for indemnity is dismissed.
6 Jul 2022

MANUKAU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1591

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1591
Court

High Court

The trial Judge's rejection of the appellant's unsworn interview account was open on the evidence given the combination of factors (late hour, screwdriver in ignition, broken quarter glass, mismatched registration details, implausible due diligence claim and vague source of vehicle) and thus proved recklessness; the previously undisclosed notebook and EVI were admitted as fresh evidence but would not have altered the outcome, so no miscarriage of justice occurred and the conviction stands.
30 Mar 2022

MAHON v WAIMAURI LTD [2022] NZCA 96

Citation

[2022] NZCA 96
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to amend pleadings and the notice of appeal was declined because the proposed misrepresentation claims were new causes of action not pleaded at first instance, dependent on additional facts and a different legal basis, would cause prejudice and amount to an abuse of process in light of parallel proceedings (some claims already struck out as time-barred), and could not be used to set off a claim by a different party (Waimauri); consequently the appeal was dismissed.
21 Mar 2022

M v R [2022] NZHC 529

Citation

[2022] NZHC 529
Court

High Court

The s147 application was correctly dismissed because alleged collusion and inconsistencies were matters for the jury and did not manifestly discredit the Crown case; there was no evidence the Crown acted in bad faith so no award under the CCCA was warranted; however the police's failure to disclose the recorded telephone call was an isolated but significant procedural failure without reasonable excuse and, as sanction under s364 CPA, the police must pay $6,000 to the defendant.
21 Oct 2021

MIHAKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 555

Citation

[2021] NZCA 555
Court

Court of Appeal

Even if the complainant's earlier statement had not been provided, the timing discrepancy would not have materially affected the trial outcome or the credibility finding; therefore no special reasons exist to recall this Court's prior judgment under the principles in Uhrle v R and the recall application is declined.
28 Jul 2021

LEADERS HAWKES BAY LIMITED v ROXANNE PIENAAR [2021] NZHC 1925

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1925
Court

High Court

Leaders failed to make full and frank disclosure by not revealing that The Brand Guardian Ltd had provided the original workbooks before Pienaar's personal engagement and by creating the misleading impression that the workbooks were substantially based on Leaders' confidential information developed while employed; although a serious issue remained, the balance of convenience favored the respondent given the weakened evidential footing for Leaders, Pienaar's undertakings and conduct, so the without-notice interim injunctions were rescinded.
20 Apr 2021

MONTAPERTO v R [2021] NZCA 170

Citation

[2021] NZCA 170
Court

Court of Appeal

On the balance of probabilities the jury foreman received credible extrinsic information that the appellant was a prime suspect in the Teresa Cormack murder and communicated that information to other jurors before deliberations; that transmission of materially prejudicial extrinsic information created a real risk of miscarriage of justice by producing apparent bias, rendering the 1988 convictions unsafe and requiring them to be quashed; no retrial ordered given lapse of time and sentence served.
26 Nov 2020

ALLEN v R [2020] NZCA 596

Citation

[2020] NZCA 596
Court

Court of Appeal

The recall application is declined because the applicant failed to establish the exceptional grounds required for recall: the certificate was not shown to be crucially defective given the analyst personally received the exhibits, the defence had a formal admission that the material was cannabis, the chain of custody and analyst evidence supported the result, and alternative remedies exist; therefore no miscarriage of justice warranting recall was demonstrated.
4 Nov 2020

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ECOMI TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD [2020] NZHC 2883

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2883
Court

High Court

The freezing and ancillary orders were continued until further order because the applicant still demonstrated a good arguable case, there are assets within the Court's reach including property and cryptocurrency, and there remains a sufficient risk of dissipation; the respondents' non-disclosure and third-party-asset allegations did not, on the material before the Court, undermine the justification for continuation.
27 Aug 2020

H (CA271/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 368

Citation

[2020] NZCA 368
Court

Court of Appeal

No miscarriage of justice was shown: the juror issue did not raise apparent bias; admission of the defendant's interview and the complainant's unedited EVI were defensible strategic decisions that assisted the defence and did not unfairly prejudice the trial; late NIA vehicle information was tested at trial and did not prejudice the defence; cumulative Sungsuwan challenges failed to show a real risk to verdict safety; sentencing at 13 years fell within band three and denial of a good character discount was justified by the offender's criminal history and lack of remorse.