New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment threshold

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2021

SGARGETTA v ASB BANK LIMITED [2021] NZCA 459

Citation

[2021] NZCA 459
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court admitted the additional affidavit evidence but concluded there was no reasonably arguable defence that ASB or the receivers caused sales at an undervalue because the tender sales were in line with contemporaneous valuations and forced sale values, the evidence relied on by appellant was unreliable or hearsay, and there was insufficient proof of causation or ongoing effect of any alleged earlier marketing conduct; accordingly summary judgment for the shortfall was correctly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
16 Dec 2019

Hawthorn v Hawthorn [2019] NZHC 3337

Citation

(2019) 20 NZCPR 625
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are bona fide factual and legal disputes (notably whether the Davy Street property is a partnership asset and whether the defendant has arguable equitable defences of constructive or resulting trust or estoppel) that could lead to outcomes other than the sale and equal division sought by the plaintiff; therefore the matter is unsuitable for summary determination.
31 Oct 2019

MO & OR v YANG & OR [2019] NZHC 2712

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2712
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants had no defence to the claim for a resulting trust; contemporaneous documents and communications (WeChat messages, solicitor emails, settlement paperwork) raised genuine, credible factual disputes about whether the parties agreed a one-third share plus loan arrangement and whether plaintiffs waived nomination rights, issues that cannot be resolved at summary judgment and require trial.
1 Apr 2015

SAHA v REARDON [2015] NZHC 638

Citation

[2015] NZHC 638
Court

High Court

Applications were dismissed because they depended on numerous unresolved factual disputes, credibility issues and contested settlement principles that materially affect legal rights; the accounts were not settled and declarations or liability findings would be premature without a full trial.
14 May 2012

KING V NORFOLK NOMINEES LIMITED COA CA546/2011

Citation

COA CA546/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court summary judgment because there were arguable factual and legal issues about whether required CCCF Act disclosure had been made and whether the commitment charge was improperly described and charged as interest (including potential breaches of ss 17, 38, 41, 44 and operation of s 99), so the matter was not appropriate for summary judgment and must be remitted for case management/trial.
5 May 2011

401L LTD V CHHIN AND LY HC AK CIV-2011-404-0046

Citation

openlaw-d5bb00a5_6a6d_4405_b67f_c9bbbe6b6853.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there were tenable factual disputes on whether Ironfish's statements and conduct, viewed as a package in context, had the capacity to mislead the respondents under s 9 FTA and whether that conduct fell within the scope of Ironfish's actual authority such that it could be imputed to 401L; those disputes precluded summary disposal.
19 Nov 2010

DJ PROPERTY TRUSTEES LTD V COOK HC HAM CIV 2010-419-000368

Citation

openlaw-3237eafb_9a49_4286_a59c_78999facf1e1.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the defendants raised an arguable defence: the purchaser's solicitor's disapproval concerned restrictive covenants affecting title, a matter within the solicitor's conveyancing remit, and there was a genuine factual dispute (including whether disapproval was bona fide or for other reasons) that could not be resolved on summary judgment and required trial.
14 Oct 2009

HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED V ERCEG AND ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-004035

Citation

openlaw-ce18373c_9f17_4b95_b912_e274873e1cda.pdf
Court

High Court

The court concluded there was no express or implied consent by the mortgagee to any lease to the third defendant because the settlement deed and annexed sale contract did not evidence positive acceptance of a tenant or tenancy; mere naming of the third defendant in the sale contract and reservation of position by the bank did not amount to consent under s138 PLA, and consequently any lease would not bind the mortgagee under s119 LTA; accordingly summary judgment for possession and a declaratory order were appropriate.
19 Aug 2009

ALUMINIUM SYSTEMS (NZ) LTD V HODGSON AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2009-419-000608

Citation

openlaw-c9db1b7b_c869_4866_85b1_5394c413b475.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendants failed to produce any credible evidential foundation for their pleaded defences (non est factum, lack of consideration, genuine dispute, oppression, counterclaim); the guarantee was validly executed as a deed and does not require consideration; consequently there was no real or bona fide defence and summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs.