New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third-party claims

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2023

TE HEI v HAWKINS [2023] NZHC 553

Citation

[2023] NZHC 553
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's award of emotional harm damages to an immediate family member was legally unsustainable because the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act requires a claim to disclose a cause of action under the general law, and the causes identified (including assault/battery) do not permit third‑party recovery of emotional harm or exemplary damages; DBAC Act‑derived claims permit only pecuniary benefits for family members, not emotional or bereavement damages.
27 Jun 2022

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QLDC [2022] NZHC 1494

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1494
Court

High Court

The bathroom pods allegations, first pleaded in the 6th amended statement of claim (22 Feb 2019) and amplified thereafter, amounted to a fresh cause of action requiring investigation of different facts and thus fell outside the 10‑year longstop in s393 Building Act 2004 (last relevant act/omission dated 19 Sep 2007); 'proceedings' in s393 is to be understood as the claim/relief the pleading advances for limitation purposes (consistent with interpretation in Orewa Grand), the WHRS assessor application does not stop time running for non‑weathertightness claims, and therefore the Associate Judge…
27 Jul 2021

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2021] NZHC 1914

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1914
Court

High Court

Because Elliott Architect Ltd had no realisable assets and no creditors and the liquidator had no funds and did not contend that creditors would be prejudiced, and because the plaintiffs' claim was arguable and there was potential insurer recovery and imminent mediation, the court granted leave under s 248(1)(c) for the plaintiffs and the first defendant to continue proceedings against the company in liquidation; leave to withdraw for solicitor and counsel for the company in liquidation was also granted.
30 Jul 2012

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V COLLEY & ANOR HC AK CIV-2011-404-998

Citation

openlaw-51aaf9c8_3384_436b_83eb_faaaa81c79dd.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was appropriate against Mr Colley because the Company was insolvent, repeatedly breached covenants, independent reports confirmed incapacity to pay, and Westpac's conduct did not amount to oppressive exercise of contractual powers under the CCCFA; however summary judgment was declined as to Mrs Colley because she raised an arguable oppression defence given her guarantee and claimed lack of notice of increases to the facility.
30 Oct 2008

DAVIDSON ARMSTRONG & CAMPBELL SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED V CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MORRISON HC NAP CIV 2008-441-276

Citation

openlaw-88d58dc1_0a65_48b9_9ca2_4009dccc0e0b.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to discharge the onus under r 570 to show the share portfolio was owned by third parties; the available evidence (including broking records, prior affidavits and conduct) established the defendant as the beneficial owner; therefore the charging order over the shares remains and the stay is refused.

New Zealand Case Law

TE HEI v HAWKINS [2023] NZHC 553

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QLDC [2022] NZHC 1494

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2021] NZHC 1914

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V COLLEY & ANOR HC AK CIV-2011-404-998

DAVIDSON ARMSTRONG & CAMPBELL SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED V CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MORRISON HC NAP CIV 2008-441-276