New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal from commercial list

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2014

SHANGHAI NEUHOF TRADE COMPANY LTD v ZESPRI INTERNATIONAL LTD [2014] NZHC 2353

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2353
Court

High Court

The court struck out the plaintiffs' claim for indemnity of the criminal fine as barred by the ex turpi causa principle but refused to strike out or stay the remainder of the proceedings because (a) the reimbursement claim could in principle be established without relying on the plaintiffs' illegality and (b) there was an unresolved issue of attribution whether the criminal conduct was that of the companies' directing mind; evidential difficulties alone did not justify strike out and the matter required fuller factual inquiry and case management.
18 Feb 2014

LOCKWOOD GROUP LIMITED v SMALL [2014] NZHC 178

Citation

[2014] NZHC 178
Court

High Court

Although extension of time could be justified given counsel's misunderstanding and prompt steps taken, leave to appeal under s 24G is refused because the proposed appeal lacks substance: the strike out of imprecise defamation paragraphs was justified for failure to plead words and provide particulars, the $1,000,000 lost sales claim lacked adequate causation and particulars, and removal from the commercial list was a proper exercise of discretion; accordingly no leave to appeal is granted and extension of time is not required.
29 Aug 2013

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION v JAMES HARDIE NZ LTD [2013] NZHC 2230

Citation

(2013) 21 PRNZ 659
Court

High Court

The proceeding, being essentially a product-defect and negligence claim brought by public education bodies against suppliers of cladding, is not of a sufficiently commercial nature to qualify for the Commercial List under s 24B(1); even if it were eligible, the Court would exercise its discretion to remove it from the Commercial List and assign a Judge to actively manage complex interlocutory and joinder issues, therefore the proceeding is removed and an assigned Judge is to manage the case.
7 Jun 2011

WATERHOUSE V CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-3074

Citation

openlaw-034d015a_4e02_40c2_9447_1cdb9137a4a3.pdf
Court

High Court

The litigation funding agreement was to be produced to the Court for perusal but not disclosed to the defendant; there was no proper basis to permit the defendant to see it; the defendant failed in its application to remove the proceeding from the Commercial List and plaintiffs are awarded 50% of their Category 2B costs ($2,914) for that aspect; costs on the funding disclosure and other aspects of the first judgment lie where they fall; in respect of the second judgment costs lie where they fall because parties had roughly equal success and the plaintiffs' offer of $50,000 security for costs…

New Zealand Case Law

SHANGHAI NEUHOF TRADE COMPANY LTD v ZESPRI INTERNATIONAL LTD [2014] NZHC 2353

LOCKWOOD GROUP LIMITED v SMALL [2014] NZHC 178

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION v JAMES HARDIE NZ LTD [2013] NZHC 2230

WATERHOUSE V CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-3074