14 Oct 2019
The High Court held Ms S did not meet the s17(1) threshold because her contributions were paid employment or minimal, one-off financial acts, and not shown to have preserved or kept PCL going; therefore the Family Court's award of $326,300 under s17 was legally erroneous and is quashed.
11 Sept 2018
Deceased breached his moral duty to both daughters; to remedy the breach each daughter is entitled to an award equal to 10% of the estate. Final orders as to mechanism to realise that entitlement (provisional preference for subdividing S11/1 and selling the residue of 609 combined with 610) are deferred for further submissions to enable practical implementation without unduly displacing the surviving partner or overburdening executors.
9 Aug 2018
The plaintiffs were overall substantially successful; comparison of Tower's Calderbank offers with the plaintiffs' ultimate judgment must include interest, costs and disbursements; because the aggregate judgment including costs and interest ($855,169.20) exceeded Tower's offers, r 14.11 did not entitle Tower to costs from rejection dates; the plaintiffs were awarded costs of $81,249 and disbursements of $122,515.20.
1 Mar 2018
The Court accepted VANZ's quantum calculation and refused to increase the s 23 pension from 10% to 60% because VANZ had assessed and found 10% in 2000-2001, the challenge to entitlement was not the focus of the judicial review so jurisdiction to alter it was doubtful, and VANZ's use of 2017 pension rates produced an overall benefit; the $25,475.48 deduction for pension already paid was proper.
13 Mar 2013
Ms Grant was entitled to costs because Ready Mark's limited victory was effectively nullified by the Court of Appeal and Ready Mark unreasonably refused Calderbank offers; a 50% uplift was appropriate and costs were calculated pro rata for a three‑quarter day interlocutory hearing plus a case management memorandum, producing a total award of $7,314.
31 Aug 2010
The Court held it had jurisdiction to permit an amended summary judgment process to determine quantum after liability had been decided; liability was final and therefore not revisited, but quantum remained undetermined and could be scheduled for hearing; the defendants' stay application was refused.
4 Dec 2009
The High Court held that clause 25 applied to Fonterra shares issued in place of Kiwi shares and that the High Court had already determined entitlement to the replacement shares or equivalent capital, leaving only quantification to the arbitrator; there was no extant leave to appeal the quantum, the Sklenars' precautionary late applications did not justify relitigation, and the Final Award as corrected 8 January 2009 should be entered as a judgment against the Sklenars.
19 May 2008
The Court held the contested passages and Mr Swindon's expert evidence were admissible: the material comprised factual and industry observations rather than legal conclusions; retrospective opinions do not automatically render evidence inadmissible where they may give substantial help; valuation evidence by reference to Fletcher Challenge Energy share price is admissible notwithstanding complicating factors; weight and proof of relied facts under s25(3) remain matters for trial.
30 Oct 2007
The defendant's application to vary or rescind the 8 October 2007 directions was misplaced because any alleged discovery default did not justify upsetting the established timetable for resolving quantum; the appropriate course is either reactivation of the original discovery application or a targeted application after the plaintiff serves its quantum evidence, therefore the existing directions and the 21 February 2008 hearing remain in force.