New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Apportionment

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2023

MASTER BUILD SERVICES LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 698

Citation

[2023] NZHC 698
Court

High Court

The Court held MBS has a genuine commercial interest in the homeowner's assignment because it paid under the Guarantee and recoupment was factored into the commercial product; the validity of the assignment is not defeated by the form of the Guarantee nor by the limited scope of subrogation available to guarantors; factual disputes about coverage and responsibility prevent striking out or summary judgment. Accordingly QLDC's strike out and summary judgment applications were dismissed.
13 Jun 2022

JOHNS v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL (recall of judgment) [2022] NZHC 1378

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1378
Court

High Court

The Court granted the recall because it had overlooked the consolidation order and, as a result, omitted necessary express findings about the Council's cross-claim and mutual contribution between the Council and Mr Davey; this oversight constituted a narrow 'very special reason' under r 11.9 and Horowhenua to amend the formal judgment without relitigating substantive findings, as no party was prejudiced and the amendments only clarify previously made liability apportionments and contribution rights.
1 Sept 2020

HOLMES v CROMBIE [2020] NZHC 2262

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2262
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court judgment: Montgomery Place was relationship property due to intermingling of separate funds with joint relationship property (s10(2)), subject only to the respondent's concession to repay $90,811.64; the additional $10,000 deposit and $15,550.42 Bonus Bonds were not proven to be separate property; the $7,809.44 withdrawal from the joint account remained relationship property and must be returned to the pool; claims for missing chattels lacked sufficient evidence to award a specific sum; and services/payments to Fyfe did not establish a significant contri…
7 Aug 2019

MC v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 89
Court

District Court

Dr Henderson's WPI assessment complied with the prescribed AMA IV and ACC User Handbook methodology, was detailed and supported by a specialist peer review (Dr Dean); the appellant failed to provide cogent evidence or expert critique to establish on the balance of probabilities that the assessment was incorrect, therefore the ACC decision (WPI 18% for covered injuries) was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
23 Apr 2018

ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED [2018] NZHC 769

Citation

(2018) 131 IPR 363
Court

High Court

The Court held Technologies was entitled to a notional licence fee assessed as a reasonable royalty at the date of infringement (mid-2001); Geostel, as main beneficiary of the breach, is the appropriate notional licensee; after weighing the cup's importance, available alternatives (design-around, offshore manufacture), competitive pressure from the incumbent licensee Graders, and commercial realities, a reasonable licence fee is $6.00 per cup assembly; applied to 85,000 cup assembly equivalents the award is $510,000, with interest and costs reserved for further submissions.
8 Feb 2018

U v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 28
Court

District Court

Dr Todd's mental injury assessment and the 15% apportionment were not shown to be flawed; Dr Xiong's second opinion was unreliable and insufficient to displace the assessment. However, regulatory and guide provisions (Independence Allowance Regulations, AMA4, ACC User Handbook) require combining impairments from all covered injuries into a single whole person impairment, therefore the Corporation's decision not to combine the 5% back impairment and 15% mental impairment was incorrect and the decisions are modified to provide an independence allowance based on the combined whole person impairm…
26 Jul 2017

Peters v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 75
Court

District Court

The 2010 impairment assessment by Dr Cheesman was flawed because it was founded on an uncertain factual matrix regarding the scope of cover for the May 1986 injury (and the relationship of subsequent surgeries to that cover), which undermined the apportionment analysis; accordingly the 2010 decision is set aside and the Corporation is directed to determine the scope of the 1986 cover and whether the later lumbar fusion addressed a traumatic fracture or consequences of earlier surgery before reassessing entitlement.
19 Jul 2017

D v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 83
Court

District Court

The assessor's WPI determination of 10% was upheld because the assessment complied with statutory requirements (AMA4 and ACC handbook), the 20% apportionment to non-injury conditions was justified and explained, and the appellant failed to provide clear, cogent expert evidence to demonstrate the assessment was flawed; therefore the Corporation's decision stands.
15 Mar 2017

V v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 22
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because Dr Park's assessment followed the required AMA4/ACC User Handbook methodology, she had and considered the relevant material, no medical evidence was produced to show the impairment ratings or apportionment were incorrect, and the appellant failed to meet the onus of proving the assessment flawed.
17 Feb 2017

RAE BEVERLY ADLAM v JOHN TIONGA SAVAGE, LAWRENCE TE AOKAHARI NIAO, PATRICK MAYNE SAVAGE, SAMUEL KELVIN BARNES AND TAMATI DRAWBRIDGE AS TRUSTEES OF THE MATATA PARISH 39A 2A AHU WHENUA TRUST [2017] NZSC 11

Citation

[2017] NZSC 11
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal correctly held that an account of profits requires a causal link between the fiduciary's breach and the profits made; contribution of third party assets did not provide a basis to avoid disgorgement where that causal link existed and no valid reason was shown to allow the fiduciary to retain profits.