New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Authority to commence proceedings

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2018

KOOIMAN v F M CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2018] NZHC 176

Citation

[2018] NZHC 176
Court

High Court

Leave to file the further affidavit and to raise the unpleaded lack of authority issue was refused because the assertions were speculative and insufficiently supported; the solicitors' warranty under r 5.37 and an affidavit from FMC's director that approvals were obtained 'as required' dispelled reasonable doubt, so there was no basis to treat the summary judgment as obtained by abuse of process and no basis to set aside the bankruptcy notice.
16 Nov 2010

RJ & MH MCVITTY AND ORS V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2010-485-1164

Citation

openlaw-81c5d9ca_9818_4400_bc82_58cc53b2228d.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike-out application was dismissed because the documentary and solicitor evidence established that both directors (including Garrity via solicitor confirmation) authorised PDL to commence proceedings; however the receivers' stay application succeeded in part because the court was not satisfied the indemnities were demonstrably adequate and therefore stayed PDL's and MPL's causes of action until Mr McVitty provides (1) a signed indemnity, (2) a verified statement of personal assets and liabilities satisfactory to receivers and the Court, and (3) security in an amount and on terms satisfa…
23 Dec 2008

BODY CORPORATE 182040 & ORS COLERIDGE LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2002-404-1665

Citation

openlaw-c42822e5_9dd2_484c_9d2f_eda9d4307cc0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused to strike out the proceeding. It held the Body Corporate had authority via the owners' committee and subsequent ratification by many owners via general meetings and levy payments, but found a sufficient basis to question authority of specific individual owners and required written confirmation for identified units. The Court permitted removal and addition/substitution of multiple second plaintiffs subject to reservation of defendants' rights to seek costs and to apply to strike out new plaintiffs. The Court ordered further particulars identifying units affected by specific d…
23 Feb 2007

UNION AIR SERVICE COMPANY LIMITED V WASAN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-2190

Citation

openlaw-e70b8b74_0592_49a2_8707_e9a3af046d55.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court declined to dismiss the proceedings at this interlocutory stage and continued the stay until further order because although the plaintiff knew of and failed to comply with the security for costs order (suggesting intentional and contumelious conduct), there was not sufficient ongoing prejudice to defendants to justify dismissal; the Court also declined to order the solicitor to pay costs personally because the available evidence about his authority was uncertain and the Court's summary jurisdiction required clear and verifiable facts before making a personal costs order.

New Zealand Case Law

KOOIMAN v F M CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2018] NZHC 176

RJ & MH MCVITTY AND ORS V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2010-485-1164

BODY CORPORATE 182040 & ORS COLERIDGE LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2002-404-1665

UNION AIR SERVICE COMPANY LIMITED V WASAN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-2190