New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repleading

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

HWADRO INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED v MOA BREWING COMPANY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3420

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3420
Court

High Court

The court concluded Moa was largely successful in its challenge to Hwadro's pleadings: strike out and summary judgment were dismissed but the pleading was defective and must be repleaded; security for costs was properly ordered; costs were awarded to Moa on a 2B basis with one interlocutory allowance plus a 50% uplift, producing costs of $9,440.50 and total costs and disbursements of $9,990.50; leave was reserved to seek indemnity costs if a contractual breach by Hwadro is established.
31 Oct 2023

MASTERS v MASTERS [2023] NZHC 3027

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3027
Court

High Court

Court found many causes of action against Arrowmasters and the Ennismore Trust redundant because Arrowmasters became a debtor to Sylvania Trust and Masters and its net sale proceeds will be distributed to creditors; struck out specific causes pleaded without proper particulars or against incorrect defendants (notably the 17th and 18th causes and others), ordered the fourth defendant removed from proceedings, required repleading of claims under s 44 against the fifth defendant with particulars, struck out causes dependent on resulting trust where law precludes automatic relief from undervalue…
27 Oct 2023

AUCKLAND TROTTING CLUB INC v CANAM GROUP LTD [2023] NZHC 3009

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3009
Court

High Court

Costs were ordered to lie where they fall because the parties had comparable success: Petrou identified significant defects in the statement of claim and succeeded on several points, but ATC succeeded on key substantial issues and was granted leave to replead; on balance no party should recover costs from the other.
26 Oct 2018

MUIR v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2018] NZCA 456

Citation

[2018] NZCA 456
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the appellant's challenge proceedings had been struck out as an abuse of process and thereby brought to an end; the Supreme Court's leave decision confirmed that striking out the proceedings meant they could not be revived by filing amended claims, so the appellant's attempts to replead were impermissible and the appeals were dismissed.
21 Dec 2015

DAVIS & ORS v MANCER & ORS [2015] NZHC 3351

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3351
Court

High Court

The court refused to reduce costs because allowing repleading was not an indulgence arising from bad behaviour, both parties acted reasonably, and no special circumstances under r 14.7(g) existed to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; plaintiffs awarded 2B costs.
13 Jun 2013

K B DOBSON v H MILLOY and H R MILLOY & Ors [2013] NZHC 1408

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1408
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff received the funds on behalf of John Anthony Reid and the defendants demonstrated a relevant interest in the disposition of those funds to their counterclaim and guarantee enquiries, the Court ordered discovery from both the non‑party Reid and the plaintiff; the relevance of the documents justified compulsion despite limited prospective incremental value, with costs as to non‑party compliance reserved and costs against the plaintiff ordered to lie where they fall.
7 Jul 2011

RONALD KEVIN WILLIAMS V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC ROT CIV 2010-463-000634

Citation

openlaw-a5aae3a0_5afd_454e_897d_b08245790c1e.pdf
Court

High Court

The claim was struck out because the pleaded case disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the alleged losses were time-barred by the Limitation Act 1950, the bailiff's actions were within execution of judicial process and entitled to s 6(5) Crown immunity, the Te Turi Whenua Act did not apply to unsecured chattels, and the pleadings were confusing and hopeless such that further amendment would be futile.
25 Jun 2010

AUCKLAND CHRISTIAN MANDARIN CHURCH TRUST BOARD V CANAM CONSTRUCTION (1955) LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-8526

Citation

openlaw-e42bad51_2ab6_4d5e_b0f2_560747711681.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the plaintiff's breach of contract and negligence claims against the builder (first and second causes) are statute-barred and must be struck out: contractual obligations ended by practical completion/CCC timeframe so Limitation Act s4 and Building Act s91(2) bar the claims. New Zealand law does not extend the builder’s tort duty of care to non-residential/commercial buildings in this context and it is inappropriate to develop such a novel duty on strike out. Claims for negligent misstatement/repairs (sixth and seventh causes) could not be disposed of on summary judgment be…
15 Feb 2008

AOTEAROA INTERNATIONAL LTD V PAPER RECLAIM LTD HC AK CIV 2001-404-1799

Citation

openlaw-9c0eeb50_4921_4202_b251_2b8ab3f2b91c.pdf
Court

High Court

Paper Reclaim was awarded costs on scale 2 band B for all steps, with a 40% uplift under Rule 48C for Aotearoa's unreasonable persistence in hopeless heads of claim; Aotearoa was not awarded costs for the unproceeded discovery application; total assessed costs $6,048 plus disbursements to be certified by the Registrar.