New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies and damages

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2023

TATA v ABRAMS [2023] NZHC 3373

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3373
Court

High Court

On the evidence the executor acted in self interest and unfairly by selling estate property at substantial undervalue and gifting $300,000 to her son; the purchaser knowingly assisted the breach; both are liable to account to the estate. Remedy awarded: defendants jointly and severally liable to pay $300,000 damages, interest from 26 February 2021, costs to be assessed, and surplus mortgagee sale funds subject to a remedial constructive trust for the estate; limited relevance of cultural considerations does not excuse the failure to obtain family approval or a Deed of Family Arrangement and d…
11 Oct 2022

SHK TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD v NZDMG LTD [2022] NZHC 2620

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2620
Court

High Court

Court held plaintiffs entitled to recover adjusted rent for COVID periods: 70% of rent/outgoings for Alert Level 3 and 60% for Alert Level 4 (specific sums awarded), interest at 12% from 1 August 2020 on those sums, full recovery of removal and premises reinstatement costs and legal costs; the s245 notices were not invalid despite overstating amounts; plaintiff's claim for loss of future rent after re-entry was rejected in part because plaintiff failed to mitigate; all defendants' counterclaims dismissed.
6 May 2020

KWOK v RAINEY [2020] NZHC 923

Citation

[2020] NZHC 923
Court

High Court

The Court found the de facto relationship commenced 1 March 2009; the transfer of the section into the David Rainey Family Trust in April 2011 was made with the intention or for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff's prospective relationship property rights and therefore s44 applies; the Trust could not be relied on to defeat the claim and the family home was treated as relationship property subject to equal sharing; Gascoigne Wicks negligently advised the defendant and that negligence caused the defendant's loss because proper advice would likely have led the defendant to end the relations…
19 Jun 2019

MOANAROA v RUWHIU [2019] NZHC 1406

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1406
Court

High Court

The court found Vernon Ruwhiu owed a fiduciary duty to Ms Moanaroa and breached that duty by diverting her funds into a trust he controlled without her informed consent, causing loss; Denise Ruwhiu and Bonnie Ruwhiu were liable for knowing receipt of trust assets traceable to Ms Moanaroa; appropriate relief is repayment of the trust monies (as specified), interest at 5% from relevant dates, $25,000 general damages and costs, with a contingent judgment against Bonnie recoverable only if sums are unrecoverable from Vernon and Denise.
27 Mar 2019

MAD BUTCHER HOLDINGS LTD v STANDARD 730 LTD [2019] NZHC 589

Citation

[2019] NZHC 589
Court

High Court

At the interlocutory stage the Court found MBH has a strongly arguable case that clause 22 extends to post‑term independent trading from the same premises, that MBH has a legitimate interest in protecting goodwill and the franchise model, that damages would likely be an inadequate remedy for MBH, and that the balance of convenience and overall justice favour interim relief; accordingly a conditional interim injunction was granted.
12 Oct 2016

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS AND ORS [2016] NZCA 493

Citation

[2016] NZCA 493
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed. The Court held that s 55 provides an exhaustive statutory framework for what constitutes an 'untrue statement' in a prospectus and requires identification of particular statements or linked omissions; s 56(1) requires proof of loss 'by reason of' an untrue statement so liability depends on materiality and causation assessed by reference to the notional prudent non-expert investor (objective and fact‑sensitive); the due diligence defence is only available where defendants had reasonable grounds to believe statements true (not where they knew statements untrue); the trial judg…
1 Jul 2016

WESTPAC NZ Ltd v TUSCANY PROPERTIES LTD [2016] NZHC 1488

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1488
Court

High Court

The meeting was without prejudice and produced no binding process contract; Westpac only agreed to consider any written proposal, which it did and permissibly rejected for valid commercial reasons; there was no reasonable reliance or detriment giving rise to estoppel, Westpac complied with its duty as mortgagee in marketing and sale, and its conduct was not oppressive—therefore Westpac is entitled to judgment for the shortfall, interest and costs.
16 May 2016

HELI HOLDINGS LTD v THE HELICOPTER LINE LTD [2016] NZHC 976

Citation

[2016] NZHC 976
Court

High Court

Heli Holdings breached contractual obligations (maintenance standards, 'just culture', good faith) in the 2008–2013 period but THL did not quantify loss and remained liable for shortfall hours to 30 June 2013; proved liability for shortfall hours 1 July 2008–30 June 2013 is NZD 2,015,724.72 (plus Judicature Act interest from 26 Sep 2013). By 2 July 2013 Heli Holdings (via chairman Jones) repudiated and/or manifested continuing material breach by refusing to accept THL's maintenance/safety concerns and limiting obligations to mere regulatory compliance; THL was justified to ground the fleet an…
15 Oct 2014

INTERNATIONAL NZ TRADING LTD v WOOD [2014] NZHC 2540

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2540
Court

High Court

On the evidence the first defendant had responsibility for drafting and completing the contract and her name was inserted as seller; both the first defendant and the company were effectively sellers; the goods supplied were defective and failed to meet the sample and statutory standards (merchantable quality and fitness for purpose), constituting breaches of contract and the Sale of Goods Act; plaintiff entitled to recover proven losses subject to mitigation (credit for salvage), and contractual penalties were assessed as quantified in the judgment.
20 Aug 2014

OVERTON HOLDINGS LTD v APN NEW ZEALAND LTD [2014] NZHC 1966

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1966
Court

High Court

Court held there was no actionable implied misrepresentation by APN: the purchaser's assumption from a leaseback did not displace caveat emptor; the IM contained explicit disclaimers about structural surveys and compliance which precluded a reasonable understanding that APN represented structural soundness; clause 18 (non-reliance) was fair and conclusive in the commercial context and barred reliance on any alleged pre-contractual representation; clause 49.1 did not, on its proper construction and read with the lease, impose an obligation on APN to fund capital structural remediation for eart…