New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statute-barred claims

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2023

ANDERSON v NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1561

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1561
Court

High Court

The application is struck out as an abuse of process because earlier proceedings raising the same issues were struck out in 1999, a 2005 attempt to revive was dismissed, the Supreme Court confirmed the 1987 proceedings are at an end, limitation and intervening events (liquidation, bona fide third‑party purchaser) preclude the relief sought; accordingly strike out pursuant to HCR 15.1 was justified.
9 May 2016

DEBT BUYERS LIMITED v ADAMSON [2016] NZHC 932

Citation

[2016] NZHC 932
Court

High Court

Debt Buyers established on the balance of probabilities that it acquired the residual debt of $362,137.70 by assignment and therefore has standing to sue for the principal; the claim for principal is governed by Limitation Act 1950 s20(1) (12‑year rule) and is not statute‑barred, but Debt Buyers failed to prove it acquired NZGT's rights to recover contractual interest accruing after the mortgagee sale, so the claimed interest is not recoverable.
22 Feb 2016

MACKENZIE V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZCA 24

Citation

[2016] NZCA 24
Court

Court of Appeal

Application for special leave was declined because the proposed appeal raised no arguable point of law: the claim was statute-barred (time ran from removal on 2 October 1987 or at the latest from 21 March 2005 when claimant was informed), CHFA's refusal did not amount to fraudulent concealment under s 28(b), Crown Law could not be sued in the manner proposed and any fresh causes of action would be time-barred under r 7.77(2).
10 Jun 2015

SUISSE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v BEVERLEY JEAN MONK [2015] NZSC 81

Citation

[2015] NZSC 81
Court

Supreme Court

On the facts the Courts below found substantial indebtedness from Watt group companies to Mrs Monk, the $500,000 payment was authorised by the company's sole director acting within his authority and was not shown to be a material mistake or paid in bad faith, the claim failed on its merits and was statute-barred under the Limitation Act; further evidence was not fresh and would not have changed the outcome, so leave to appeal was refused.
3 Oct 2014

JAMES GORDON NEWLANDS v SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2420

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2420
Court

High Court

Second and third defendants are entitled to costs on a 2B scale with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; no uplift on scale costs is justified; an award of 2B costs for discovery and inspection is appropriate but limited to the actual costs incurred for those steps and the defendants must file a memorandum confirming actual costs; the plaintiff's arguments did not establish an 'other reason' under r14.7(g) to reduce costs.
10 May 2011

ASHLEY KANARA APATU V KENNETH TAMA TE KAPUA APATU HC NAP CIV-2009-441-000515

Citation

openlaw-4802bd91_9f6c_4737_82c7_01900e1505b6.pdf
Court

High Court

All causes of action advanced by the plaintiffs were dismissed: clause 9 did not create an enforceable transferable obligation without consideration; Ohiti Waitio 3A vesting and subsequent family deed were not procured by fraud and the evidence supported an innocent vesting/mistake and family agreement; claims in respect of Lindauer paintings and other taonga were not properly pleaded against these executors or raised on the correct factual/legal footing; alleged misapplication of estate funds for Lawn Road and other specific monetary claims either lacked evidential support or were statute‑ba…
17 Dec 2009

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ARGON AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-004551

Citation

openlaw-15617ec7_573b_4f25_81c3_4ba1f8a4b693.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike-out applications were dismissed as premature because the amended claim is insufficiently particularised and factual disputes cannot be resolved on strike-out; however, limitation under Building Act s393 confines recoverable claims to building work carried out from midnight on 17-18 July 1998 onward (the initial day excluded), so plaintiff may only sue for acts or omissions from that time and must re-plead accordingly.
11 Jun 2009

PD VAUGHAN V GB CHRISTIE AND ORS HC WN CIV 2009-485-603

Citation

openlaw-6fb26429_72db_49d7_8797_8652b9ae7a0b.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs ordered because plaintiff conceded impecuniosity, pleadings were deficient, the claim lacked proportionality and strength on the material available, defendants would face substantial and likely protracted costs, and no persuasive evidence established that defendants caused the plaintiff's impecuniosity; $60,000 security is appropriate and the proceeding is stayed until provided.
9 Nov 2005

HEAVEN V WEBSTER MALCOLM & KILPATRICK HC AK CIV 2004-404-002826

Citation

openlaw-6f37934b_4b6b_4407_9cc2_9d7ffa797401.pdf
Court

High Court

The review is dismissed because the Judge correctly found the plaintiffs knew the facts giving rise to their causes of action by 23 April 1998 so the six year limitation period had expired before commencement; the pleaded fiduciary breaches were tortious in nature and time-barred by analogy; the claim for anxiety and stress could not survive independently absent a recognised psychological disorder and therefore fell with the primary claims.