New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of causes of action

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2022

LOW VOLUME VEHICLE TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v DRIVE NZ CLASSIC LIMITED [2022] NZCA 405

Citation

[2022] NZCA 405
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the regulatory regime embodied in the Land Transport Rule and the Low Volume Vehicle Code is directed to public road safety rather than protecting the private economic interests of LVV producers, Drive NZ lacked the necessary proximity and recognition of the novel duty would be contrary to policy; accordingly the pleaded negligence cause of action disclosed no reasonably arguable claim and was struck out. The Court did not decide the assignment point as it was unnecessary to the outcome.
10 May 2022

JEREMY WALTER CLAXTON v SMITHS CITY (SOUTHERN) LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2022] NZCA 173

Citation

[2022] NZCA 173
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested questions principally raised findings of fact and did not have reasonable prospects of success on the legal points advanced: the funding arrangement was a lawful business sale not an impermissible assignment giving rise to abuse of process; the consent defence failed on the factual findings (subterfuge and breach of fidelity); and the damages assessment was a reasonable exercise based on the best available evidence and expert agreement.
29 Nov 2021

MAUGER v TUCKER [2021] NZHC 3214

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3214
Court

High Court

The Court ordered the applicants substituted for the deceased plaintiff under rr 4.50 and 4.52 because the executors validly assigned the cause of action to persons with a genuine interest, substitution was necessary and desirable to allow prosecution without duplicative proceedings, and nothing in the Rules precluded the order; the defendants' strike-out applications failed because, although the ex parte litigation guardian application had disclosure deficiencies, that did not justify striking out the substantive claim as an abuse of process at this interlocutory stage.
9 Mar 2021

TPD 2018 LTD v GODFREY AND COMPANY LTD [2021] NZHC 431

Citation

[2021] NZHC 431
Court

High Court

The court held the TPAG arrangement was a joint operation/joint venture rather than a partnership; equity and contract required Godfreys to account for TPA's share of net proceeds; specific staff allocation adjustments and a limited run-off contractor cost were allowed but claims for a managing director allowance and most run-off costs were rejected; the assignment to TPD was valid because the merger/amalgamation context and the merger agreement afforded a genuine commercial interest; resulting payment ordered to be $589,844 plus interest and costs to be determined.
2 Oct 2020

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v JOHN ROBERT CHESTNEY & ORS [2020] NZHC 2590

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2590
Court

High Court

The court granted the application in part: plaintiffs must file an amended statement of claim providing further particulars of (1) the damage caused or to be caused by the pleaded defects and the location of that damage and a general description of the remedial solution required (not necessarily repair for each individual defect), (2) economic loss particulars including remedial cost breakdown (investigation, design, remedial works), stigma, alternative accommodation and lost rental rates/periods, lost business income basis/period/amounts, moving/storage/cleaning costs per unit, and (3) parti…
2 Oct 2020

CAIN v METTRICK (Costs Judgment) [2020] NZHC 2597

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2597
Court

High Court

On the production application neither party prevailed overall so costs lie where they fall; on the stay application the second defendant achieved the limited relief of a temporary stay but costs nevertheless lie where they fall because the stay centred on weak improper motive arguments that significantly increased costs and delay and because the plaintiffs had offered to negotiate amendments which was not taken up, justifying exercise of discretion under r14.7 to refuse/reduce costs.
21 Aug 2020

SAMY TRUSTEE LIMITED v PAUANUI DREAM ESTATE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2118

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2118
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court was not satisfied that the agreement and surrounding conduct amounted to an effective assignment of the plaintiffs' s174 cause of action to EWL; the sale agreement clauses (cls 19.1–19.2) and affidavits established that EWL's involvement was funding payment of legal costs only and did not cede control of or ownership of the claim; accordingly there was no abuse of process and no basis to stay the proceedings; there was also no jurisdiction to order security for costs because there was no reason to believe the plaintiffs could not pay defendants' costs…
7 Aug 2020

DUSTIN v STARK [2020] NZHC 1975

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1975
Court

High Court

The Court granted joinder: the Rights of Action assigned were incidents of the bankrupt's property and not rights "conferred on the Assignee by the Act" for the purposes of s 221, so s 221 did not bar the assignment; consequently the Trustees were properly joined as plaintiffs, Ian Dustin was removed, the joinder takes effect from the date of judgment and directions were given for an amended statement of claim and filing of defences.
20 Apr 2020

IRWIN v MULES [2020] NZHC 748

Citation

[2020] NZHC 748
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal in part: conversion is actionable per se so loss is not a required element; the deed between Mr Alexander and the appellant constituted a valid assignment of the causes of action (there was a genuine commercial interest and no unlawful trafficking in litigation); accordingly both respondents are liable in conversion (and the first respondent also in detinue for continued retention); unresolved questions about the validity of the second registered security interest and quantum of damages must be remitted to the District Court.
4 Mar 2020

Drive NZ Classic Ltd v Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association Incorporated [2020] NZHC 396

Citation

(2020) 25PRNZ 589
Court

High Court

The assignment deed was a principal document within r 8.4(1)(b) because it was used in preparing and finalising the statement of claim; by pleading and relying on the assignment Drive NZ put the document in issue and thereby waived any claim to withhold it under Evidence Act s 65(3); s 56 did not protect the assignment because its dominant purpose was acquisition of rights, not preparation for litigation; the court may order production under r 7.48 for failure to comply with r 8.4; accordingly Drive NZ must produce the assignment deed within 10 working days and pay NZTA costs on a 2B basis.