New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standing

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2023

STRANGE v CASEY FARMS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3596

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3596
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal interlocutory decisions was declined because the issues were properly raised and could be advanced as grounds of appeal against the substantive judgment, the threshold for leave was not met, and the informal discovery requests did not justify recusal; the stay of enforcement of the costs judgment was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and defendants were entitled to recover their costs.
9 Nov 2023

HEALTHALLIANCE N.Z. LTD v HEWLETT-PACKARD NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 3150

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3150
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed both parties' costs applications and ordered costs to lie where they fall: healthAlliance's summary judgment application was discontinued after Capax and Zovy produced a late but admissible 2022 deed that confirmed and/or assigned the rights, and Capax and Zovy's strategic procurement of that deed shortly before the fixture disentitled them to an award of costs; healthAlliance's conduct did not justify costs in its favour given the complexity and ambition of the application.
6 Nov 2023

KENNEDY v BODY CORPORATE 82981 [2023] NZHC 3123

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3123
Court

High Court

Leave of the Court is not required to commence a common law derivative action in the context of a body corporate governed by the Unit Titles Act; standing challenges should be addressed by strike-out, preliminary issue, or at trial rather than by a mandatory leave regime; under r 4.56(1)(b) the Court ordered joinder of Leigh Francis Burney and Diane Florence Burney as fourth and fifth defendants; the Court declined to determine standing on this interlocutory application and left procedural options open to the defendants.
1 Nov 2023

BODY CORPORATE 455529 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 3047

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3047
Court

High Court

The application for declaratory relief is refused for lack of jurisdiction under s 3 because the declarations sought would necessarily require the Court to determine the existence and scope of a novel tortious duty of care owed to bodies corporate as legal owners of common property rather than merely construing a statute or instrument; alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed the Court would refuse relief in its discretion because the declarations sought are overly broad, lack utility and could have unintended consequences.
31 Oct 2023

STRANGE v CASEY FARMS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3054

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3054
Court

High Court

The amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action because the plaintiff lacked standing—he was not a party to the sale, had no pleaded proprietary or beneficiary interest, and did not plead viable tort claims; the pleading was defective and speculative; accordingly the proceeding was struck out.
11 Sept 2023

KAIN v PUBLIC TRUST [2023] NZHC 2535

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2535
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the distribution deed was reasonably necessary for the applicants to enforce the Trust: their contingent interests have been effectively extinguished, significant delay undermines the utility of disclosure, no convincing confidentiality concern was shown, and disclosure would not alter the present position; therefore disclosure was not required under ss 52–53 of the Trusts Act 2019.
1 Sept 2023

JINDAL v LIQUIDATION MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2023] NZCA 413

Citation

[2023] NZCA 413
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the High Court judge properly exercised the discretion under r 5.45: the applicant's claims lack merit or standing to pursue s 284 relief, the public interest/watchdog argument did not displace the need for security, the staged security and stay were reasonable to protect respondents from costs, and no arguable error of law or fact justified granting leave.
28 Apr 2023

THE COMMERCIAL HOTEL 2017 LTD v GIBSON [2023] NZHC 951

Citation

[2023] NZHC 951
Court

High Court

Where multiple plaintiffs have distinct legal positions dependent on agency, standing or contracting status, the pleading must set out separate causes of action for each plaintiff (or groups with identical positions) and plead all material facts about agency and reliance; interrogatories seeking evidential detail are premature until the pleading is properly amended. Accordingly the statement of claim was ordered to be amended and interrogatories were not ordered answered at this stage; costs awarded to defendants.
31 Mar 2023

MASTER BUILD SERVICES LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 698

Citation

[2023] NZHC 698
Court

High Court

The Court held MBS has a genuine commercial interest in the homeowner's assignment because it paid under the Guarantee and recoupment was factored into the commercial product; the validity of the assignment is not defeated by the form of the Guarantee nor by the limited scope of subrogation available to guarantors; factual disputes about coverage and responsibility prevent striking out or summary judgment. Accordingly QLDC's strike out and summary judgment applications were dismissed.
14 Mar 2023

MALCOLM BRUCE MONCRIEF_x001e_SPITTLE v REGIONAL FACILITIES AUCKLAND LIMITED [2023] NZSC 20

Citation

[2023] NZSC 20
Court

Supreme Court

The Court awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondents, reflecting a $30,000 ordinary award reduced by 70% consistent with the prior agreed reduction applied in the Court of Appeal, because the proceedings had features of genuine public interest and the appellants had limited (procedural) success but overall the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies.