New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res judicata/estoppel

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2023

FORD BENJAMIN MOEKE v RAUKAWA IWI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 7

Citation

(2023) 26 PRNZ 230
Court

High Court

Application for joinder dismissed because the jurisdictional threshold under r 4.56(1)(b)(i) was not met — the liabilities of the proposed individual officers and solicitors had not been established and thus they did not clearly 'ought to have been joined' — and even if threshold met the Court would exercise its discretion against joinder due to likely disruption and delay, significant elapsed time and identifiability of the proposed defendants, potential public interest concerns including indemnities under the Local Government Act, and the exceptional nature required for post-judgment joinde…
5 Jul 2017

MCGOUGAN v DEPUY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1534

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1534
Court

High Court

The Court held s 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 bars claims for compensatory damages in New Zealand courts that arise directly or indirectly out of personal injury covered by ACC even where the impugned conduct occurred overseas; 25 of the plaintiffs were estopped or their claims would constitute an abuse of process due to their connection to the Allen (No.2) proceedings; on costs the Court classified preparation and hearings as requiring category 3 skill but excluded specified items, applied hybrid 2B/3B calculation, reduced preparation days, allowed a one third reduction for publ…
9 Jun 2017

BODY CORPORATE 172108 v MANCHESTER SECURITIES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1252

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1252
Court

High Court

The Court had jurisdiction under ss 48(6) and 48(7) Unit Titles Act 1972 to vary Heath J's 2011 costs direction; the variation is effective from 18 March 2013 so that applications of paragraph [17] of the 2011 judgment after that date are set aside; otherwise costs follow the event under the High Court Rules and specific bandings were fixed (original application reduced to 2B, list of documents on discovery 2C, preparation of written submissions and authorities 2C, most other items 2B), expert witness fees and disbursements were recoverable as reasonably necessary, Manchester awarded a 0.2 da…
25 Jan 2017

LEEF v BIDOIS AND ORS [2017] NZHC 36

Citation

[2017] NZHC 36
Court

High Court

The Mana Whenua Agreement remains in force and binding; the arbitrators' award conclusively determined only which hapū held mana whenua (binding on the parties) but did not decide the separate question of allocation adjustments contemplated by cl 6.14 of the Mana Whenua Agreement; accordingly Ngāti Taka may invoke the adjudication process (cl 6.10–6.15) to seek an adjustment of the allocation, and the Court will grant declarations to that effect while refusing an order for specific performance.
10 Oct 2016

SALE 33 LIMITED v M D DESIGNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS [2015] NZHC 2403

Citation

SALE 33 LIMITED v M D DESIGNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS [2015] NZHC 2403
Court

High Court

Application to strike out was dismissed because the Court could not be certain the plaintiff's pleaded claims were frivolous or an abuse of process: the Tribunal declaration did not finally preclude High Court consideration in the interlocutory/contextual circumstances and, critically, the Court could not be satisfied the plaintiff's damages claim would fall within the Tribunal's $50,000 monetary cap so the High Court could not summarily remove the case from substantive determination.
17 Nov 2015

Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZHC 2855

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2855
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' proceedings were an abuse of process and effectively estopped by prior Supreme Court decisions, thereby justifying an award of indemnity/increased costs. The court assessed quantum by reference to Category 2 Band B and applied a 50% uplift as an appropriate measure of indemnity/increased costs; GST was not allowed and specific items (second counsel, appeal commencement) were disallowed. Costs were apportioned so that principal plaintiffs are liable for $26,566.50 and bankrupt/liquidated parties for $12,238.50, with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
28 Mar 2014

ASB BANK LIMITED v ROBINSON & ANOR [2014] NZHC 608

Citation

[2014] NZHC 608
Court

High Court

The Court adjudicated the Robinsons bankrupt because the statutory prerequisites were satisfied (a valid judgment existed, bankruptcy notices based on that judgment were served and went unsatisfied), the defendants could not collaterally attack the judgment in bankruptcy proceedings, the alleged defects and arguments raised did not undermine the judgment or show a sufficient basis to refuse adjudication under s37, and discretionary considerations (including public interest and commercial morality) favoured adjudication despite limited recoverable assets.
23 Oct 2013

BURMEISTER v REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND [2013] NZHC 2777

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2777
Court

High Court

The third party notice was set aside because r 4.4(1)(b) was not satisfied: similarity of monetary relief alone does not justify joinder when the facts and issues between plaintiff and defendant differ materially from those between defendant and proposed third party, joining would risk unnecessary re‑litigation of findings and prejudice expedition and the interests of justice.
25 Oct 2012

NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PROCESSING LTD v SCHENKER (NZ) LTD SC 55/2012

Citation

SC 55/2012
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was not satisfied it was necessary in the interests of justice: the prospect that a res judicata estoppel would arise was speculative, the law on s 290 is settled and not of general commercial significance, and there was no real risk of substantial miscarriage of justice if the appeal were not heard.
23 May 2008

DONOVAN DRAINAGE AND EARTHMOVING LIMITED V HALLS EARTHWORKS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) CA CA463/07

Citation

openlaw-7a51db31_223f_4f7e_b295_a74e5c2bb097.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the application for extension was made within the prescribed six month period and the matter involved unusual factual and contractual complexities, pending related District Court proceedings and limited prejudice given the respondent was not trading, the Court exercised its discretion under r 43 to grant a short extension until 31 August 2008; costs were reserved.