New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unreasonable fees

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2021

COMMERCE COMMISSION v HARMONEY LTD [2021] NZHC 665

Citation

[2021] NZHC 665
Court

High Court

The application for further particulars is dismissed because, on the evidence before the court, the Commission does not possess sufficient information to specify more particularised and quantified costs; however the court records that the Commission's pleading effectively puts all of Harmoney's costs in issue, so Harmoney must prepare its evidence on that basis and the Commission should narrow issues as soon as it is able.
27 Sept 2016

REAL FINANCE LIMITED v SETEFANO [2016] NZHC 2293

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2293
Court

High Court

The High Court held that s 120 empowers a court to reopen a credit contract on its own motion in any proceedings before it where the court considers the contract is oppressive; s 125 governs who may commence standalone reopening proceedings and their time limits but does not preclude the court acting on its own initiative in other proceedings. The power must be exercised cautiously and only in the clearest cases, and a creditor must be given the opportunity to adduce evidence before the contract is reopened. The District Court's decision to disallow the monthly administration fees without giv…
12 May 2016

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2016] NZSC 53

Citation

[2016] NZSC 53
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal: ss 41–44 must be interpreted transaction‑specifically so that fees are reasonable only to the extent they recover costs or losses sufficiently close and relevant to the particular steps to which the fee relates; permissible cost recovery is generally variable/transaction‑specific costs with limited inclusion of fixed costs where proven; broad allocation of general overheads or a beneficial‑relationship/avoidable‑cost approach is not permitted.
24 Mar 2015

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND MOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION CA727/2013 AND CA593/2014 [2015] NZCA 78

Citation

(2015) 14 TCLR22
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that ss 41, 42 and 44 must be applied so that fees are justified by costs that are sufficiently close and relevant to the enumerated fee activity; the broad 'beneficial relationship' or full cost absorption approach is rejected; High Court findings that Sportzone/MTF charged unreasonable fees were upheld; where loss is proved s 94 relief (repayment) is available.
21 Oct 2010

COMMERCE COMMISSION V BLUESTONE MORTGAGES NZ LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-409-617

Citation

openlaw-4c94b11c_bfdf_406d_ac2e_8056a0f1129d.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants' interlocutory applications were refused because the issues raised—characterisation of the DEF, reasonableness under the Act, the impact of securitisation on recoverable costs, and expert conflicts—raise substantial questions of fact and complex mixed law and fact that are not suitable for determination on summary judgment or strike out; Avanti did not decide these issues and did not justify summary disposal; leave to apply out of time was declined.
5 Feb 2008

TRIPLE R ENGINEERING LIMITED AND ORS V INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS LIMITED HC PMN CIV-2007-454-882

Citation

openlaw-cdc9caa4_7cdb_4bb4_b6bf_d614f7220382.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found Triple R Engineering Ltd established a genuine and substantial dispute through uncontradicted affidavits and absence of a detailed fee breakdown from the respondent, so its statutory demand was set aside; by contrast the second and third applicants failed to show disputes as to their respective debts, so their demands were upheld and payment orders made.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMERCE COMMISSION v HARMONEY LTD [2021] NZHC 665

REAL FINANCE LIMITED v SETEFANO [2016] NZHC 2293

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2016] NZSC 53

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND MOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION CA727/2013 AND CA593/2014 [2015] NZCA 78

COMMERCE COMMISSION V BLUESTONE MORTGAGES NZ LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-409-617

TRIPLE R ENGINEERING LIMITED AND ORS V INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS LIMITED HC PMN CIV-2007-454-882