New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unjust enrichment

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2023

XU v MENG [2023] NZHC 1899

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1899
Court

High Court

The deposit of $200,000 is to be returned because the oral agreement ended on lapse of the caveat and plaintiffs accepted obligation to return deposit; defendants were not entitled to repayment of alleged principal repayments because plaintiffs could not verify the principal component of payments; to do justice the Court calculated actual shortfall in interest payable by defendants and made an order under s43 for $16,520.20 (shortfall) payable by defendants plus statutory interest; plaintiffs' claims for rental, income from boarders and commercial use failed for lack of factual or legal basis…
21 Sept 2023

FIRST CREDIT UNION INCORPORATED v VAIANGINA [2023] NZHC 2639

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2639
Court

High Court

On the affidavits and material before the Court FCU demonstrated a good arguable case on at least one pleaded cause of action, identified assets with sufficient particularity, and established a real risk of dissipation supported by alleged fraudulent conduct and respondent non‑engagement; balancing the interests and given the offered undertaking as to damages, limited without‑notice freezing relief was justified, including restraint over the jointly owned leasehold property as against the co‑owner respondents but not as a personal order against the non‑defendant co‑owner.
1 Sept 2023

JINDAL v LIQUIDATION MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2023] NZCA 413

Citation

[2023] NZCA 413
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the High Court judge properly exercised the discretion under r 5.45: the applicant's claims lack merit or standing to pursue s 284 relief, the public interest/watchdog argument did not displace the need for security, the staged security and stay were reasonable to protect respondents from costs, and no arguable error of law or fact justified granting leave.
19 Jul 2023

BODY CORPORATE 406198 v PROPERTY OPPORTUNITIES LIMITED [2023] NZCA 302

Citation

[2023] NZCA 302
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 5.6.6 is ultra vires because it is designed to compensate an exclusive letting regime that the body corporate had no statutory power to create; that clause is void ab initio. The management agreement otherwise is intra vires and the ultra vires letting provisions are severable. The unjust enrichment claim requires reconsideration in the High Court in light of the finding that clause 5.6.6 is ultra vires.
17 Jul 2023

LIU v HE [2023] NZHC 1848

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1848
Court

High Court

Leave to file the second amended statement of claim was granted because the defendant consented and the trial date could be maintained; the application for an order for the taking of an account was dismissed because liability to the plaintiffs has not been established, the application amounted to a fishing expedition seeking further discovery rather than a proper account, the GST issue could be addressed without a full account, and relevant documents had already been discovered; further discovery orders were declined given the imminence of trial and existing disclosure; costs awarded to defen…
5 May 2023

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE AS LIQUIDATOR OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LIMITED (IN LIQ) v KLOOGH [2023] NZHC 1054

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1054
Court

High Court

Stolen client funds transferred into the family trusts were received as volunteer gifts and are traceable; both the principal stolen amounts and the capital gains attributable to their use are recoverable from the trusts by restitution or imposition of a constructive trust, subject to preserving an untainted personal contribution of $35,000 and after payment of the liquidator's costs, to be distributed pari passu to victims under s284 Companies Act 1993.
28 Mar 2023

HINGSTON v HINGSTON [2023] NZHC 649

Citation

[2023] NZHC 649
Court

High Court

The counterclaim failed because the trustees’ entitlement rested on performance of an agreement to occupy for life and the chattels/debts were either security or reduction of that assessed life-occupancy consideration; the Trust breached the agreement by making occupation untenable and failing to provide suitable alternative accommodation, the plaintiff only enjoyed c.16 months’ occupation so no net sums were established in the trustees’ favour, and key elements of the counterclaim lacked required particularity and evidential support, therefore the counterclaim is dismissed.
13 Feb 2023

JINDAL v LIQUIDATION MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 183

Citation

[2023] NZHC 183
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact in the earlier judgment, lacked standing or a proper public interest justification to pursue the claims on behalf of the 133 companies, the claims were speculative and meritless absent particularisation, and the order for staged security for costs was properly made.
24 Nov 2022

CRAWFORD v BACON, [2022] NZHC 3085

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3085
Court

High Court

Threshold under r 5.45(1) satisfied; balancing factors justified partial security rather than full amount because full payment would likely prevent prosecution; order made for immediate payment of $17,079 and further security of $25,095 to be provided if matter is set down for trial; proceeding stayed pending payment of $17,079; costs reserved.
23 Nov 2022

QINGHUA MO v ZHE YANG [2022] NZCA 573

Citation

[2022] NZCA 573
Court

Court of Appeal

Where payments by appellants to purchase or develop property gave rise to a resulting trust, equity could impose a constructive trust to reflect the parties' reasonable expectations and to prevent unconscionable retention of legal title; accordingly Huxley Place and Ropata Avenue required constructive trust relief proportionate to appellants' contributions (with Ropata remitted for quantification), Bawden Road was governed by an express agreement (loan with partial interest) and IMCA is the default interest regime with s18 exceptions not engaged on the facts.