New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor duties

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2019

MARK ROBERT SANDMAN v COLIN CHARLES McKAY, ROGER DAVID CANN AND DAVID JOHN CLARK (as partners of Wilson McKay) [2019] NZSC 41

Citation

[2019] 1 NZLR 519
Court

Supreme Court

Majority: Appeal dismissed and summary judgment for the respondent firm affirmed. The contemporaneous record, including a medical certificate, independent solicitor's certification and detailed solicitor file evidence, rebutted any arguable case of dishonesty or wilful blindness by the firm in preparing and executing the 2010 will; the pleaded case failed to show an actionable breach of fiduciary duty by the attorneys tied to the enduring powers that the firm dishonestly assisted. Further, the appellant lacked sufficient proprietary/beneficiary interest to sustain an accessory liability claim…
24 Jun 2016

HORSPOOL v GLAISTER ENNOR [2016] NZHC 1386

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1386
Court

High Court

Pre-commencement discovery was ordered under r 8.20 because the applicant demonstrated a real (non-speculative) potential claim for breach of fiduciary duty, it was impracticable to responsibly formulate the claim without the specified documents, and there were sensible grounds to believe the documents or their provenance were within the defendants' control or knowledge.
5 May 2016

Estate of H H Ratana [2016] NZHC 911

Citation

[2016] NZHC 911
Court

High Court

Because Ms Bradbury is a named executor who requires the original will to apply for probate and an impasse exists where the holding solicitor refuses to act or produce the will pending instructions or payment, the court exercised its power under s54 of the Administration Act 1969 to order production of the original will. The court also noted the ex‑wife's appointment is void under s19 of the Wills Act, leaving the applicant entitled to proceed.
7 Oct 2013

JOHN MURU WALTERS TRADING AS WALTERS LAW v KEVIN JAMES HYDE AND LYNNE COLLEEN HYDE [2013] NZHC 2596

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2596
Court

High Court

The respondents suffered a compensable lost chance because competent advice would likely have led them not to settle; damages are assessed as remedial costs plus interest less the deposit that would have been forfeited (and less interest on that deposit); solicitor/client costs were not justified and must be replaced by costs on scale.
3 Sept 2009

CAPPING CORPORATION LIMITED V JILLIAN D. YOUNG HC AK CIV 2009-404-005253

Citation

openlaw-6a454160_d239_4eae_93f8_7e6298241a3f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to grant a limited extension of time because the respondent's request was bona fide, arose from genuine evidential difficulties involving overseas witnesses and the assignor, did not cause serious delay, and should be conditioned by a strict timetable to protect the applicant's rights; accordingly the respondent was ordered to file opposing material by specific dates and no order for costs was made.
19 Oct 2007

BEVERLEY MARGARET RAWLEIGH V DEREK MAXWELL TAIT HC WN CIV 2003-485-1924

Citation

openlaw-2499716b_37c4_4fe4_9264_10b3b67a521c.pdf
Court

High Court

Court found defendant breached duty to obtain informed consent when acting for both spouses but did not know of any undue influence; breach did not cause plaintiff's loss because on the evidence it was more likely than not that plaintiff would have signed the guarantee regardless; guarantee was enforceable by the bank.

New Zealand Case Law

MARK ROBERT SANDMAN v COLIN CHARLES McKAY, ROGER DAVID CANN AND DAVID JOHN CLARK (as partners of Wilson McKay) [2019] NZSC 41

HORSPOOL v GLAISTER ENNOR [2016] NZHC 1386

Estate of H H Ratana [2016] NZHC 911

JOHN MURU WALTERS TRADING AS WALTERS LAW v KEVIN JAMES HYDE AND LYNNE COLLEEN HYDE [2013] NZHC 2596

CAPPING CORPORATION LIMITED V JILLIAN D. YOUNG HC AK CIV 2009-404-005253

BEVERLEY MARGARET RAWLEIGH V DEREK MAXWELL TAIT HC WN CIV 2003-485-1924