New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2023

HOU v ZHANG [2023] NZHC 3102

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3102
Court

High Court

The PSA (including clauses 7–9) is binding and the buy-out process was exhausted without agreement, so there is no reasonably arguable defence to the claim for specific performance of clause 8; evidential defects in affidavits were not fatal given remedial steps and the contemporaneous documentary record, and the Court ordered specific performance limited to sale facilitation while adjourning determination of division of proceeds pending further process.
4 Jul 2023

MULHOLLAND v MULHOLLAND [2023] NZHC 1692

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1692
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for summary judgment was declined because the proposed grounds depend on disputed facts and contested legal interpretation of contractual and constitutional provisions; the deeming provision under s175 could not sensibly be applied without resolution of factual disputes and, even if liability were found, remedies and quantum would still require a full hearing producing significant duplication and prolonging proceedings.
17 May 2023

YUE v ZHOU [2023] NZHC 1157

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1157
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the Family Court's factual findings — that Blockhouse Bay was a project of Mr Wen Zhou and held on trust for him, and that the Hobson Street apartment was substantially funded by the Yue parents with the apartment retaining character as the family home — were supported by the evidence and no other reasonable conclusion was open on the record; credibility and weight determinations were properly made by the trial judge and not overturned on rehearing.
14 Nov 2022

AAL HOLDINGS LTD v AITKEN [2022] NZHC 2973

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2973
Court

High Court

The Court ordered division in kind under s 339(1) and (4) on the parties' agreed terms because (a) expert evidence and valuers agreed freeholding with registered height covenants would enhance saleability and value, (b) unimpeded views from 121B were not a feature attaching to the land given the existing cross-lease development right over 121E and therefore were not a weighty s 342(f) consideration, and (c) 121 Ltd failed to establish compensable detriment or unfairness warranting refusal of division or payment under s 343(a).
16 Sept 2022

CSR POKENO LTD v YES INVESTMENT NZ LTD [2022] NZHC 2378

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2378
Court

High Court

Although CSR raised serious questions for trial about the call option's construction and potential penalty or CCCFA relief, the balance of convenience favoured YINZ: damages were adequate, an injunction would rewrite the parties' bargain and cause irremediable prejudice to YINZ who provided majority capital; accordingly interim injunction was declined and consent interim orders discharged.
14 Jun 2022

HAYES v MACAULEY [2022] NZHC 1386

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1386
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under s 339(1)(c) to order the applicant to purchase the respondent's half-share where co-ownership is untenable and the respondent has ceased contribution and engagement; applying s 342 factors the applicant's extensive financial contributions, ongoing outgoings payment, and substantial renovation and maintenance (including sweat equity) offset the respondent's larger initial capital contribution so the Court ordered purchase of respondent's half-share at market value with specified valuation process and settlement adjustments.
1 Jun 2022

VIJAYAKUMAR v MANUKAU FAMILY DOCTORS LTD [2022] NZHC 1272

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1272
Court

High Court

Majority shareholder/director engaged in conduct that unfairly prejudiced the minority by permitting related parties to occupy Company premises at below market returns, using Company funds for related parties and personal costs, failing adequate accounting and communication; appropriate relief is a buyout of minority at the mid-range expert valuation ($667,386) and compensation for direct losses reduced for contingency ($79,281); consequential loss claim dismissed; limitation defence not established as defendants did not prove it.
30 Mar 2022

LO v LO [2022] NZCA 98

Citation

[2022] NZCA 98
Court

Court of Appeal

By consent the Court modified the prior buy-out orders to permit respondents to give a buy-out notice any time before 1 July 2022 and, if a buy-out does not proceed, ordered sale of the property on the detailed, mutually agreed terms set out in the Appendix, with proceeds applied to mortgage, outgoings and costs and the balance divided one third each.
4 Mar 2022

BAIG v R [2022] NZCA 36

Citation

[2022] NZCA 36
Court

Court of Appeal

The fresh evidence about the vendor's inconsistent statements did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice because the jury had properly assessed credibility in light of direct trial evidence (including payment to the appellant and contemporaneous admissions); however, independently adduced valuation evidence showing the vehicle's auction sale price and repair costs undermined the basis for the District Court's reparation figure, requiring quashing and remittal for redetermination.
8 Sept 2021

GROOM v BARTULOVIC [2021] NZHC 2341

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2341
Court

High Court

The accountant's determination was enforceable: he addressed the contractually defined question (net value at the termination date), used appropriate methodology (including market/development value as part of net assets), properly engaged and directed a qualified valuer, afforded parties opportunity to supply material, and there was no evidence of actual bias or procedural breach sufficient to vitiate the determination; plaintiff's post-termination involvement did not cause provable loss to justify a set-off; interest under the deed runs from the termination date and the deed prescribes base/…