New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affirmative defences

Legal area

Court

31 May 2023

GODFREY HIRST NZ LTD v BREMWORTH CARPET AND RUGS LTD [2023] NZHC 1365

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1365
Court

High Court

The pleaded affirmative defences do not constitute defences to liability under s 9 FTA because even if their factual assertions are proven they do not negate or exclude liability for misleading or deceptive conduct; therefore they disclose no reasonably arguable defence under HCR r 15.1(1)(a) and are struck out, although aspects may be relevant to remedies and should be repleaded appropriately as relief-related matters.
25 Mar 2022

BODY CORPORATE 366567 v EQUUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2022] NZCA 80

Citation

[2022] NZCA 80
Court

Court of Appeal

Where a defendant elects to call evidence in support of an affirmative defence and does not rely on a formal rule‑based admission, fairness and natural justice require that the plaintiff be permitted to adduce limited reply evidence unless doing so would cause prejudice or injustice; here no such prejudice was shown, so leave to adduce the reply evidence was properly granted.
8 Jun 2021

BISCUIT CREEK FOREST LTD v VALLANCE [2021] NZHC 1345

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1345
Court

High Court

Apply High Court Rules: Simon and Rosa entitled to 2B scale costs on the first proceeding but reduced by 12% to reflect unsuccessful or unpursued affirmative defences that significantly increased Biscuit Creek's costs; Andrew entitled to 2B scale costs on the second proceeding only to the extent of additional costs he would not have incurred but for that proceeding (including filing the defence to that proceeding and a modest allowance of 1.5 additional days for trial preparation/hearing), applying the Medway principle to overlapping proceedings; non-expert professional witness fees approved…
26 Jul 2018

MADSEN-RIES and LEVIN as liquidators of Fixed Cost Civil Limited (In Liquidation) v MAHONEY & ORS [2018] NZHC 1864

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1864
Court

High Court

The first defendant knew of the Staples Rodway report and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not informing counsel; that unexplained failure caused the adjournment and vacated the fixture, so the defendant must bear wasted costs. The plaintiffs' claimed quantum for wasted legal and expert costs was reasonable and recoverable.
1 Aug 2016

KIM v CHO [2016] NZHC 1771

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1134
Court

High Court

Defendant authored and procured publication of statements that, in seven of nine instances, bore natural and ordinary defamatory meanings imputing criminality, dishonesty or misuse of office; because the defendant did not plead a defence and did not appear, the Court proceeded on formal proof, did not consider affirmative defences, awarded compensatory damages of NZD100,000 and declined punitive damages; costs awarded on a 2B basis.
17 Sept 2014

WU v MONCUR & ORS [2014] NZHC 2253

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2253
Court

High Court

The late filing of the statement of defence was an irregularity; the court exercised its rule 1.19/1.5 discretion to grant leave to treat the statement of defence and the plaintiff's reply as properly filed so the affirmative defences are not deemed admitted, and therefore applications for summary judgment and strike out must fail; the recusal application was declined.
25 Nov 2013

BODY CORPORATE 366611 & ORS v CONFUCIUS LIMITED & ORS [2013] NZHC 3110

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3110
Court

High Court

The application for particular discovery was declined because the requests were overbroad, insufficiently specific and speculative, the defendant's affirmative defences were inadequately particularised to justify the wide discovery sought, and the new discovery rules require targeted, proportionate and cooperative discovery rather than fishing expeditions.
4 Apr 2013

GILLESPIE V GUEST HC AK CIV-2011-404-1629

Citation

openlaw-bc6d81d5_a217_4924_ac1a_8f6156559ecf.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to establish as a matter of law and on uncontested facts that he was a trustee entitled to rely conclusively on the trust deed's limitation and indemnity clauses and that the claims necessarily fall outside the irreducible core; factual disputes (appointment, capacity in which defendant acted) and the narrow construction of exclusion clauses mean the proceeding is not bound to fail and strike-out must be dismissed; plaintiffs given leave to reply and pursue further discovery.
19 Apr 2012

MANUKAU GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED V SHOYE VENTURE LIMITED COA CA747/2011

Citation

COA CA747/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court entered summary judgment based on an affirmative defence (an implied term preventing the Club's claim once it had taken over management) that was not pleaded and of which the Club had no notice; deciding that defence without leave to amend and without providing the Club an opportunity to respond was a breach of natural justice and exceeded the Judge's proper jurisdiction on summary judgment, and the factual and legal complexity required a full trial rather than summary disposal.