New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causation and damages

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2023

TAVARES v WAIKATO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY [2023] NZHC 2183

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2183
Court

High Court

The statement of claim did not provide sufficient particulars of the formation of the contract, the precise contractual terms (including whether express or implied and whether derived from the Education (Pastoral Care of Domestic Tertiary Students) Interim Code of Practice 2019), the specific acts or omissions said to breach those terms with cross-references, and the facts establishing nature, cause and reasonable estimation of loss. The defendant's application for further and better particulars is therefore upheld in substance and the plaintiff is ordered to file an amended statement of clai…
12 Sept 2017

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ANDERSON [2017] NZHC 2204

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2204
Court

High Court

Court ordered the plaintiff to provide specified further and better particulars and to incorporate previously provided informal particulars into a second amended statement of claim: particulars of the "financial difficulties" (para 17), particulars of Mr Sugden's communications specifying method and time (para 18), particulars of the aspects of financial deterioration (para 19), identification of who was dishonest (para 24), amendment or completion of Schedule B so that all relied documents are particularised (para 26), and identification of the Westpac individual(s) induced and dates of indu…
13 Jun 2016

INTERNET TRADERS LIMITED v HUTSON (FORMERLY WILLIAMS) [2016] NZHC 1269

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1269
Court

High Court

The court refused to strike out the pleaded causes of action in whole. It held that claims based on alleged breaches while a director are arguable and that obligations in respect of confidential information may be pleaded under s145 and alternatively at common law; s174 claims were not unarguable but post‑resignation conduct must be particularised to show how it engages s174. The plaintiffs were ordered to re‑plead separating pre‑ and post‑resignation breaches, to provide specified particulars (tax liability, credit card transactions, customer/email and backup particulars, damage calculations…
19 Dec 2014

BARBALICH v LEADERS REAL ESTATE (1987) LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3383

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3383
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the agent did not make the alleged untrue statements that two other tenders had been received; his statements about interest and distribution of tender documents were true and his silence about the absence of tenders was not misleading in the context of a confidential closed tender; accordingly there was no breach of s9 Fair Trading Act and no entitlement to compensation as causation and loss were not established.
28 May 2013

AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v CRONE [2013] NZHC 1227

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1227
Court

High Court

Court found that IAG representatives in the vendor's presence referred to audits and Mr Crone's silence amounted to an adopted representation about audits/compliance; however evidence established audits occurred and CSS was generally compliant with MVRA terms (with audio charged at RRP less 20%), so no actionable misrepresentation on audits/compliance; no misrepresentation regarding employee importance; plaintiffs failed to prove systemic overcharging; only $3,462.79 was recovered as money had and received against Scituate Ltd for mistaken apportionment — all other claims dismissed.
21 Dec 2007

GIBSON V MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS CA CA202/05

Citation

openlaw-1c351d7c_fe71_45b5_ae9b_fa096492a76b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's substantive dismissal of the appellant's claims: appellant failed to prove eligibility for legal aid, no conflict of interest arose requiring Minters to cease acting, delays were justified by prioritisation and appellant's financial incapacity and not attributable to culpable conduct by Minters, and no assurance of full recovery was made; however the High Court costs approach was erroneous and costs were recalculated and substituted by the Court of Appeal to $211,290 plus disbursements and interest, and CA costs of $20,000 were awarded to respondent.

New Zealand Case Law

TAVARES v WAIKATO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY [2023] NZHC 2183

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ANDERSON [2017] NZHC 2204

INTERNET TRADERS LIMITED v HUTSON (FORMERLY WILLIAMS) [2016] NZHC 1269

BARBALICH v LEADERS REAL ESTATE (1987) LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3383

AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v CRONE [2013] NZHC 1227

GIBSON V MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS CA CA202/05