New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of rights

Legal area

Court

9 Nov 2023

HEALTHALLIANCE N.Z. LTD v HEWLETT-PACKARD NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 3150

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3150
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed both parties' costs applications and ordered costs to lie where they fall: healthAlliance's summary judgment application was discontinued after Capax and Zovy produced a late but admissible 2022 deed that confirmed and/or assigned the rights, and Capax and Zovy's strategic procurement of that deed shortly before the fixture disentitled them to an award of costs; healthAlliance's conduct did not justify costs in its favour given the complexity and ambition of the application.
1 May 2023

MASTER BUILD SERVICES LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 1000

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1000
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed; costs awarded to the successful party (MBS) on the 2B scale because the application was not sufficiently complex to warrant 2C, and a 50% uplift was justified because QLDC pursued the interlocutory application despite prior detailed correspondence from MBS explaining why it would fail.
15 Aug 2022

INERT HOLDINGS LTD v GULF HARBOUR MARINE VILLAGE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION INC [2022] NZCA 379

Citation

[2022] NZCA 379
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants were not successors or assignees of GHDL in the required legal sense and therefore could not be Developer or Controlling Member; only one entity can hold those roles at a time and the chain of assignment showed no transferee of Marlin's status to the appellants, so even if the 2012 amendment were set aside there is no party entitled to the Developer/Controlling Member rights and the High Court did not err in refusing to declare the amendment void.
27 Nov 2014

WATSON & ORS v WHITEHEAD & ORS [2014] NZHC 2992

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2992
Court

High Court

The written October 2010 and November 2011 agreements, read in their context and having regard to subsequent conduct, established that JRWT owned the 2011 honey and the agreements did not entitle Salem/WSL to offset hive purchase prices against honey or rental. WSL and Mr Watson are liable for unpaid honey invoices under the sale agreements; JRWT breached hire agreements by failing to pay deferred rental and is liable to pay rental and interest where appropriate; Shiloh failed to mitigate resale losses and cannot recover the claimed resale shortfall but is liable for damages for 180 defective…
27 Nov 2013

875 FRANKTON ROAD LIMITED v GABE [2013] NZHC 3146

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3146
Court

High Court

Defendants repudiated and failed to settle; Wensley validly cancelled and assigned its rights to the plaintiff with notice; defendants produced no evidence to sustain a misrepresentation defence; plaintiff entitled to judgment for the contractual losses and interest as calculated.
27 Feb 2012

875 FRANKTON ROAD LIMITED V BROOKES HC INV CIV-2011-425-000040

Citation

openlaw-64b4aeed_a4ac_4a0b_94bc_94cbe56d6bb2.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to prove New Zealand is the appropriate forum under r6.28(5)(c); material factors (where business was transacted in London, location and compellability of independent witnesses in England, the applicability and technical nature of the FSM Act 2000, and the parties' residences) preponderantly pointed to England as the forum with the most real and substantial connection, therefore the proceeding is dismissed for forum non conveniens.
3 Dec 2009

ANDREW JOHN CARDNO V COMPUDIGM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2009-485-1616

Citation

openlaw-217b9446_f8c2_4bca_902f_cfa000105e8e.pdf
Court

High Court

A valid assignment of an employer's causes of action, including the right to pursue a dispute under s 65(1), confers standing on the assignee and the Commissioner retains jurisdiction to determine the dispute where such a dispute remains between the relevant parties.
28 Apr 2009

BODY CORPORATE NO 199348 AND ORS V NIELSEN HC AK CIV 2004-404-3989

Citation

openlaw-84d68751_7c92_4438_8af4_d85cbc641f11.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to bring cross-claims out of time was refused because the applicant's disentitling delay and the prejudice to defendants who had already settled made the exercise of discretion in his favour impossible, and because an alternative remedy (issuing separate proceedings) remained available.
31 Mar 2008

MCFARLANE V HALIFAX FINANCE LIMITED HC WN CIV-2007-485-1122

Citation

openlaw-0ab672b4_c037_430d_adee_64aba90e3335.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the assignment relied on by the applicant was not in evidence, the High Court cannot properly admit fresh evidence for determination by the Court of Appeal, and absent that evidence the statutory threshold for leave (a question of law of general or particular importance) could not be established.
27 Aug 2007

FIFER RESIDENTIAL LIMITED V KNIGHT COLDICUTT HC AK CIV 2005-404-2299

Citation

openlaw-62cdce6e_9a79_449f_8e75_b9cf2b8c5af3.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant's strike-out application was dismissed because it was tenable on the pleadings that the retainer was continuing and that breaches could have occurred after May 1999 (so the claims were not inevitably statute barred); the Court granted leave to amend the current statement of claim to add particularised allegations concerning building contract and unit plan advice (these particulars are further particulars of existing pleaded breaches, not fresh causes of action), but refused leave to file the September 2006 amended statement of claim because it asserted fresh causes of action (du…