30 Nov 2023
The application to recall the Court's judgment is declined because the matters complained of were either addressed, were unnecessary to decide given Mako's restoration, or were not subject to an appealable error (notably the unchallenged factual finding that the appellant suffered no loss from the trading breach), and recall is available only in narrow, exceptional circumstances.
30 Sept 2020
The appeal is dismissed. The High Court held McNeill did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct: its opinions and advice were honestly held and reasonably based on extensive local drilling experience and expert hydrogeological evidence; there was insufficient evidence that an irrigation supply was likely from the flat/aquifer; McNeill was not obliged to advise location beyond the diviner‑selected site; drilling to 88.7m was chargeable under the per‑metre quotation and produced a usable bore; EVL did not prove causally linked loss or the quantum claimed.
1 Jul 2020
Clauses 3–6 imposed reciprocal obligations to use reasonable endeavours and act in good faith to achieve $3m of referred work; those obligations do not amount to an absolute or best endeavours duty nor require sacrificing commercial interests. Compliance is assessed both by aggregate provision of opportunities and by examination of specific projects or classes of projects. The evidence showed Spaceworks referred opportunities of about $6.5m, provided explanations for non‑referrals, and Focus did not identify any instances where those explanations were not genuine or unreasonable; accordingly…
2 Apr 2020
Leave under s76 granted; on the facts Cockery acted 'in trade' as SBC's alter ego and his Report and plans were misleading and deceptive because they omitted fundamental, observable fire-safety requirements; Adventurer reasonably relied on the Report and suffered loss causally linked to the omissions; negligent misstatement claim dismissed against Cockery personally for lack of requisite personal assumption of responsibility; damages under s43 FTA are capped by the parties' contractual limitation, which on the facts was held to extend to Adventurer and to Cockery, so recovery limited to five…
3 Feb 2020
The recall application is dismissed because the applicant did not establish any r 11.9 ground (no new law or overlooked authoritative decision and no very special reason); alleged factual or legal errors are matters for appeal not recall.
22 Nov 2018
The Court held that the FY04 revenue forecast was an untrue statement for the purposes of s56 Securities Act 1978, that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s56 but did breach s9 Fair Trading Act 1986, and that the appellant was entitled to a costs award in this Court of $30,000 against the first to third respondents; the High Court must reconsider its earlier costs order in light of this decision and the Court of Appeal may reconsider costs if the parties' agreement permits.
8 Mar 2018
Summary judgment was refused because the plaintiff failed to establish there was no arguable defence: there were genuine and material factual disputes about whether the defendant was asked to provide tax advice and about the scope of any such request, and the nature of professional negligence claims requires exploration of facts, credibility and potentially expert evidence before liability and causation can be resolved.
28 Jul 2017
The High Court affirmed the District Court: the inserted contract price was an objective estimate for managed labour (based on 278 m2) and did not create a fixed price contract; the appellants failed to prove causation and loss from the respondents' negligent conduct and therefore were not entitled to damages; the proposed valuation evidence was not admissible because it was not fresh and would not materially assist causation/quantification of loss.
30 Jun 2017
Court found Baker owed fiduciary duties to the investors in relation to the Trident investment because investors reposed trust and he had undertaken to 'look after' investors and control funds; Baker breached those duties by making false/misleading representations, failing to control or account for funds and failing to disclose material matters and is liable for $400,000. GTNZ did not owe fiduciary duties to Backhaus in respect of the Moneylink loan prior to a formal retainer for those matters, but McCormick's representations were misleading under s9 FTA: GTNZ is liable for the plaintiffs' $1…
21 Feb 2017
Summary judgment was dismissed because triable issues of fact and law existed: the 2013 settlement, read in context, resolved a billing dispute and did not preclude the trustees' asserted causes of action; the present proceeding was not an abuse of process because the alleged breaches could not appropriately have been raised as a defence in the earlier billing claim; disputed factual issues remain on standing of the trustees, whether duties survived termination of the retainer, and causation/quantum, so the case must proceed to ordinary hearing.