New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party claim

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2023

TADD MANAGEMENT LIMITED v WEINE [2023] NZHC 764

Citation

(2023) 24 NZCPR 1
Court

High Court

The Court held the ISA and the Information Memorandum statements operated as representations of fact (not mere non‑actionable opinion) in context, the representations that the Property was 60% NBS and had a "good" NBS rating were incorrect and induced the plaintiff to buy; plaintiff reasonably relied on them and suffered loss; NZCEL's ISA was prepared within a defensible range of professional judgment and the contractual limitation on NZCEL's liability was enforceable under s5D of the Fair Trading Act; damages for the plaintiff were assessed by difference in value, and common mistake was an a…
10 Dec 2021

ZHANG v WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2021] NZCA 672

Citation

[2021] NZCA 672
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because the Associate Judge properly exercised his discretion to adjudicate: Westpac satisfied s13 requirements; contemporaneous independent valuations supported the sale prices and the sales were not at undervalue or shown to be non-arm's length; Bayleys valuations were outdated and unreliable; the appellant offered no arguable defence or viable counterclaim against Westpac; the third party claim against Mr Wu had little prospect of success or prompt enforcement; the appellant's new affidavit was inadmissible and did not satisfy the high threshold for fresh evi…
15 May 2013

HAWKE'S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL V HERBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2012-441-161

Citation

openlaw-61a08a35_20d0_4fc6_b772_4bee4d931ff8.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because Wrightson failed to demonstrate that none of Herbert's causes of action (including a reasonably amendable pleading alleging failure to maintain the contractually required 30 mm ground clearance) could succeed; credible expert evidence raised contested factual issues about ground clearance and potential contribution, making summary judgment inappropriate.
13 May 2013

PETERS v PETERS [2013] NZHC 1061

Citation

PETERS v PETERS [2013] NZHC 1061
Court

High Court

The court held that increased costs under r 14.6(3)(b)(v) were not payable because the Peters interests were justified in rejecting the offer pending discovery and inspection given serious allegations against them; accordingly the Chamberlain interests were awarded ordinary costs on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
16 Jun 2011

EXCEED DAIRIES LIMITED V WHYTE HC INV CIV 2010-425-000649

Citation

openlaw-4782f25e_e2eb_4326_9a5d_34151399ed6d.pdf
Court

High Court

Threshold met: evidence showed Exceed likely unable to meet defendants' costs; balancing the circumstances, including that the merits were evenly balanced and plaintiff had limited available funds, it was just to order security for costs of $55,000 to be paid in two tranches ($17,000 within 10 working days and $38,000 on or before setting down), with the plaintiff's claim stayed until payment and costs of the application awarded to the defendants on a 2B basis.
18 Feb 2011

VICTORIA ST APARTMENTS LTD (IN LIQ) V SHARMA HC AK CIV-2009-404-008377

Citation

openlaw-40a208f0_c489_4cb9_b459_9d27bf0c95b7.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because on the pleadings the independent accountant's mandate in the 2975 proceedings did not extend to transactions involving Victoria Street Apartments Ltd; therefore the issues between the defendants and Mr Watt will not be resolved in CIV-2006-404-2975 and a stay or strike‑out would be unjustified and prejudicial to the defendants, particularly given practical delays and funding difficulties in the 2975 proceedings.
1 May 2009

WOODGATE AND MURCOTT AS TRUSTEES OF THE EAW TRUST V PAPWORTH AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2008-419-129

Citation

openlaw-f317c9ce_6062_43f7_801d_9b6065564e53.pdf
Court

High Court

The order striking out the third party claim entitles the successful party to all costs reasonably incurred in defending that claim; costs may be assessed on category 2B with an uplift for unnecessary conduct, but the final award is limited to the actual reasonable costs incurred; accordingly Mr Bryce was ordered to pay Mr Sayer's actual costs of $11,589.36 and disbursements of $690.
3 Sept 2008

BODY CORPORATE NO. 164961 AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV2003-404-7169

Citation

openlaw-7668c85b_9775_4e9a_9de0_d98066ce41f7.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered Andrews to provide explicit particulars within 21 days identifying which of the first repair work defects alleged in paragraph 45 were said to have resulted from the First Third Party's alleged directive and how the direction causatively produced those defects, and declined to set aside or dismiss the third party notice or require the claim be pursued separately; no order for costs was made.
4 Aug 2008

BODY CORPORATE 170812 AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2003-404-007259

Citation

openlaw-b54e2465_4230_41e5_bb4f_ff73b091a39f.pdf
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were refused because Manson had an arguable legal and factual basis at the time of joinder and did not act vexatiously or wilfully disregard court directions; nevertheless Franklin was entitled to costs on a standard 2B basis, the third‑party claim was reclassified as category 3, C banding applied to specified steps, expert costs were recoverable, and the time allocation for the strike‑out application was uplifted by 50%.
4 Aug 2008

BODY CORPORATE 170812 AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2003-404-007259

Citation

openlaw-fd68b975_818e_4e1d_820c_c71fed811f72.pdf
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were refused because Manson did not act vexatiously, frivolously or wilfully disobey court directions and there was an arguable legal and factual basis for joinder at the time it was filed; however the Court reclassified Manson's claim as category 3, awarded C banding for specified steps, allowed expert costs as reasonably incurred, uplifted time for the strike-out application by 50% for unnecessary contribution by Manson, and awarded Franklin its costs of the application on a 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar.