25 Feb 2022
Van Bohemen J breached the applicant's right to natural justice by pre-determining the jurisdictional issue and striking out the proceeding without hearing the parties despite a timetable and fixture; that fundamental breach required allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court for hearing before another judge (absent both parties consenting to determination by this Court).
11 Jun 2021
The court held IPSA does not create an implied private right of action by a licensed insurer against its appointed actuary for breach of statutory duty and therefore the ninth cause of action was struck out; clause 9 of PwC's engagement terms unambiguously barred CBLI from bringing claims against PwC partners or employees, and the claims against Messrs Mackay and Rhodes in the negligence cause were struck out; clause 6.1(iv) plainly capped PwC's civil liability to five times fees, so claims against PwC exceeding that cap were not reasonably arguable and were limited accordingly (with leave to…
3 Jun 2020
The statement of claim was struck out because the proceeding was rendered academic by the sale of the property and was inconsistent with the prior judgment (Summerlee v Pool), constituting a collateral attack and abuse of process under r 15.1(1)(d) High Court Rules 2016; costs were awarded to defendants on a 2B basis with disbursements, jointly and severally against both plaintiffs, and Perpetual Trust Limited was added as a defendant pursuant to the earlier vesting order.
15 Sept 2017
The claim was struck out because the plaintiff lacks legal standing to pursue claims against the defendant for assets of the deceased: rights to sue vested in an executor or administrator (none appointed) and beneficiaries cannot bring such claims or validly elect division or effect standing by purported assignment under the PRA; accordingly the proceedings are untenable and must be dismissed.
30 May 2016
The defendants' statement of defence was unintelligible, lacked particulars and initial disclosure despite notice, and therefore disclosed no reasonably arguable defence; striking out was justified under the High Court Rules. Because the Commissioner proposed only to adopt the existing pleadings as an alternative plaintiff, service of a separate notice of proceeding was not required to avoid undue delay, though the Commissioner must still file a statement of claim and pay the fee. The matter is to proceed to formal proof and the liquidators must address standing to pursue phoenix company clai…
24 Jun 2015
The NZMA is amenable to limited judicial review as it performs quasi-public functions; there exists a genuine factual dispute about whether the plaintiff's membership was validly terminated and whether natural justice was breached, and therefore the claim is not so clearly untenable as to justify striking out. The strike out application was dismissed and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.
8 May 2015
The claim was struck out because it was barred by s317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001: the losses claimed arise from a statutory entitlement to attendant care and remedies are confined to the ACC regime; no novel common law duty of care to a third‑party caregiver to recover pure economic loss should be imposed given the legislative scheme and public policy considerations.
7 Nov 2012
The strike‑out application is dismissed because, as a matter of law, a cause of action by a company alleging auditor negligence can be tenable where the pleading properly alleges a chain of causation: that the auditor's breaches caused the company to continue trading in the same manner as during the audit year and that such continued trading caused the specified losses. The existing pleading was insufficiently particularised as to that chain and must be amended, but the claim is not inherently untenable on the pleadings.
3 Apr 2012
The pleaded causes of action were time-barred under s 4 of the Limitation Act 1950 as the breaches and damage occurred on registration of the transfer and mortgage; the plaintiffs did not plead a retainer or any viable amendment that would cure the limitation bar, so the proceeding must be struck out.
2 Oct 2009
The implied undertaking applied to the 7 January 2008 email subject heading but the action plan was properly categorised and disclosed as a business record; any use of the search materials by the plaintiffs was minimal and peripheral and did not cause the proceedings to be an abuse of process; the pleaded joint venture, fiduciary duty, knowing assistance and lease claims were not so clearly doomed to fail as to warrant strike out; and there was no basis to stay or limit discovery. Accordingly the review and strike-out applications were dismissed and interlocutory steps were to proceed.