New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bailment

Legal area

Court

16 May 2023

PENNEY v WYLIE PROPERTIES LTD [2023] NZHC 1171

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1171
Court

High Court

The Court held Wylie Properties did not establish that its claim was a liquidated demand under r15.7 because there was no clear contractual assignment or basis to fix a precise reasonable price for post-March 2015 storage; the bailment claim lacked sufficient evidence of a contractual bailment for reward or of circumstances invoking indemnity for a gratuitous bailment. Accordingly default judgment was inappropriate under r15.9. Separate discretion under r5.45 was exercised to order security for costs because credible evidence (voluntary bankruptcy, refusal to disclose finances, prior procedur…
17 Nov 2022

THE BIG BASIN LIMITED v STOCKCO LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3010

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3010
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the questions of law advanced by Big Basin were not capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient public or private importance to justify further appeal, they mischaracterised the contract as a contract of bailment rather than contractual repayment obligations, and the Tribunal's factual finding that at least 720 bulls were delivered meant the issues would not materially affect the outcome; further, appeals from arbitral awards are narrowly circumscribed under the Arbitration Act.
13 May 2022

THE BIG BASIN LIMITED v STOCKCO LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1020

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1020
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the alleged errors of law were not strongly arguable; StockCo's claim was contractual (liquidated debt) not an action in bailment so common law bailment principles including delivery and ascertainment were not prerequisites to recovery under the MLA/SA(1); the arbitrator's factual findings on delivery were within the scope of the arbitration and are not a basis for appeal; the contested interpretation of the directors' certificate was not a strongly arguable legal error and would not materially affect the outcome; and alternative or obiter findings did not…
8 Dec 2021

HERZHOFF v M F TURNBULL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3358

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3358
Court

High Court

Because there was a serious question to be tried on ownership, the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the Cabinet (irreparable loss to plaintiffs and only financial interests to defendants), and plaintiffs gave an undertaking as to damages, an interim injunction was required to restrain sale and preserve the status quo pending trial.
6 Oct 2021

SETTLERS HONEY LIMITED v FIRST HONEY NZ LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2650

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2650
Court

High Court

Payment of $648,254.01 to First Honey was received in circumstances where First Honey had no entitlement to retain the funds; Settlers Honey established a money had and received claim and is entitled to judgment for the proceeds less an arguable set-off of $155,394.00 (the assessed maximum loss of profit First Honey could have suffered), resulting in judgment for $492,860.01 plus statutory interest; constructive trust relief was not granted without further information on First Honey's solvency and the clean hands defence did not bar the money had and received claim.
3 May 2021

HARBOUR CITY SECURITY LIMITED v ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED [2021] NZHC 952

Citation

[2021] NZHC 952
Court

High Court

The rescission application was dismissed because the defendants failed to show a required causal linkage between the plaintiff's technical inaccuracies and the grant of the injunction; the decisive evidence was numerous recent client demand letters directing return of keys to Harbour City, the defendants offered no contemporaneous contracts proving a right to withhold those keys, and they unjustifiably delayed seeking relief under r 7.49; accordingly the order was not improperly obtained under r 7.51 and discretion to rescind was not exercised.
23 Dec 2020

HARBOUR CITY SECURITY LIMITED v ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3530

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3530
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried that the clients owned the keys and that a bailment/sub‑bailment existed, the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured restoring possession to the owners (or independent verification) to avoid irreparable harm to client security, and urgency justified proceeding without notice; accordingly an interim order was warranted directing respondent to return or make available the listed keys pending further order.
30 Aug 2019

VLASIC v ZELANDE LTD & OR [2019] NZHC 2152

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2152
Court

High Court

Section 284 permits the liquidators to seek court directions on the validity, existence of a lien and priority of a creditor's claim in the liquidation; there is no jurisdictional requirement that complex common law damage claims be commenced as separate ordinary proceedings before such directions can be sought; procedural form is a matter of case management and contested factual/damages matters may be reserved for a further hearing with appropriate pleadings and discovery; insolvency set-off under s 310 is relevant to quantification of claims.
19 May 2017

LHL LEASING SOLUTIONS LIMITED v PINTO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1050

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1050
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff caused inordinate and inexcusable post-issue delay resulting in more-than-minimal prejudice to the defendant's ability to obtain a fair trial on the rent and maintenance claims (witnesses and records lost, dimmed memories, inadequate discovery), those causes of action were struck out; however the claim for failure to return equipment could proceed as a fair trial remained possible on that discrete issue; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed and no costs order was made.
8 Oct 2015

WARREN METALS LTD v GRANT & KHOV [2015] NZHC 2462

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2462
Court

High Court

The District Court Judge erred in principle by failing to give adequate weight and reasons for not taking into account Warren Metals' without prejudice save as to costs settlement offer of 7 November 2014; acceptance of that offer would have been more beneficial than the final judgment on the successful claim, therefore Warren Metals is entitled to costs for steps after that offer on a 2B basis. The District Court costs order was set aside and substituted with an award of $22,475 plus disbursements.