24 Apr 2023
Because the Official Assignee consented, the plaintiffs had served evidence and a hearing was allocated to determine the same subject matter against other defendants, the Court exercised its s 76(2) discretion to permit continuation as the most just and expeditious means to resolve liability and quantum against the bankrupt defendant.
23 May 2022
Defendants who sought to vary broad, consented tailored discovery orders without proposing concrete alternative categories and thereby caused additional, avoidable expense must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application on a 2B basis; relevance and proportionality required focus on how the 2018 turnover warranty was calculated rather than indiscriminate historical disclosure.
30 Jul 2019
AAM was the successful party overall against Exotica because it proved breach of the turnover warranty and obtained primary relief; costs were awarded to AAM from Exotica on category 2B but reduced by 25% to reflect defendants' partial successes and by a further 50% for the limited role of counsel after Mr Pereira's appearance; no costs awarded against Mr Karani; Manuka Masters succeeded but was not entitled to a separate costs award under r14.15; Exotica entitled to category 1A costs for the counterclaim with one additional day at 1A for subsequent work; disbursements to be fixed by the Regi…
28 Jun 2019
The written sale agreement and MOU governed the scope of the sale: only the retail shop business (New From Zealand) and specified distribution rights were transferred; Exotica breached the turnover warranty (warranted turnover included export/wholesale receipts not sold) and the shortfall (40–49%) substantially reduced the contract's benefit entitling AAM to cancel (did not affirm the contract); damages for that breach were assessed as $25,000 (overpayment attributable to overstated turnover/stock allocation); most pre-contractual misrepresentation allegations failed for want of proof or rele…
22 Nov 2018
The court found defendants had not complied with the earlier discovery order because of identifiable gaps and discrepancies between disclosed annual financial statements and underlying source documents; further discovery was proportionate and necessary to establish accurate trading figures and quantify claims, so Exotica Enterprise Ltd was ordered to disclose all invoices and banking/transaction records from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2018 (except the court declined to require earlier 2013 year documents), Manuka Masters Ltd to disclose banking/transaction records for 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2…
30 Jul 2018
The r 8.19 application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the categories of documents sought were relevant to the matters as pleaded; many sought documents were either publicly available or already disclosed, were not in the defendants' control or could not be required to be restored, and communications with lawyers were privileged; further discovery would be disproportionate absent amended pleadings and legal advice.
16 Apr 2018
Court ordered further discovery and further particulars and vacated the 11 June 2018 fixture because pleadings and discovery were deficient, both parties shared responsibility for delay, the defendants established relevance and proportionality for disclosure under r 8.19, and quantification of damages was required before trial; security for costs was declined but the individual plaintiff must remain a party to ensure recoverability of costs; company must obtain counsel for High Court proceedings.
8 Dec 2017
The Court ordered further discovery because the requested company financial statements, GST and income tax returns, and sales and purchase records were relevant and necessary to verify turnover and quantify loss; personal tax returns were ordered for inspection by the plaintiffs' expert only, subject to confidentiality and return to defendants when no longer required.
28 Sept 2005
The defendant solicitor met the standard of care: his retainer did not extend to providing financial/business advice beyond advising the clients to obtain independent accountant and valuation reports; he raised material concerns and advised obtaining specialist advice; the plaintiffs did not rely on him for broader advice and would have proceeded regardless; plaintiffs failed to prove causation or that the lease or figures entitled them to cancel, therefore claims in negligence and for breach of retainer fail.