New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Choice of law

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2023

PUKA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 2686

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2686
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the claim: the Joint Statement is a non-binding political instrument that cannot found declaratory relief or individual legal rights; Tokelau law governs the substantive tort and contract issues and Tokelau's two-year limitation period applies (Limitation Act s55 importing Tokelau law), rendering the claims time-barred; on the merits the inducement and unlawful-means torts are untenable because the Tokelau High Court conclusively found the plaintiff's dismissal was justified and the alleged acts of defendants could not have caused the loss; further the proceeding is an ab…
1 Jun 2023

LUN v KONG [2023] NZHC 1370

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1370
Court

High Court

The Court had personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction to hear the in personam trust claim because the pleaded trust admissions and operative documents arose in New Zealand and both parties are resident there; the defendant failed to establish that China was a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum, so the protest to jurisdiction was set aside.
10 Mar 2023

KEA INVESTMENTS LTD v WIKELEY FAMILY TRUSTEE LTD [2023] NZHC 466

Citation

[2023] NZHC 466
Court

High Court

The Court held it has jurisdiction over the New Zealand company (WFTL) and Mr Wikeley; on the interlocutory material the Coal Agreement and its jurisdiction clause cannot be reliably declared genuine or exclusive, but Kea has a plausible evidential basis that the Coal Agreement may be a forgery or liable to be set aside for fraud; the jurisdiction clause does not plainly cover Kea's conspiracy and declaratory claims; New Zealand is the appropriate forum to determine Kea's claims; accordingly the defendants' applications to dismiss or stay on jurisdiction/forum grounds were dismissed, the prot…
6 Oct 2022

SCULLY v SCULLY [2022] NZHC 2574

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2574
Court

High Court

Because the parties entered a deed of settlement disposing of the residuary estate, the Court declined to decide whether to validate the checklist and instead granted letters of administration to the applicant under ss5 and 6 of the Administration Act 1969 and r27.35 of the High Court Rules 2016 directing distribution in accordance with the settlement.
25 May 2022

ALMARZOOQI v SALIH [2022] NZHC 1170

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1170
Court

High Court

Court concluded the proper law of the Nikah was UAE; under UAE Personal Status Law the deferred Mahr of 500,000 AED became payable on divorce effective 1 November 2016; defendant breached the contractual obligation by not paying; plaintiff entitled to judgment for the deferred Mahr converted to NZD at the 1 November 2016 exchange rate and interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016; public policy argument to reduce the quantum failed.
6 Oct 2021

THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL DAVID KIDD by its administrator BRYAN JOHN COOPER v VAN HEEREN [2021] NZHC 2663

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2663
Court

High Court

Court allowed a conditional further disbursement of USD 218,275 to the plaintiff as an advance on final accounting provided the plaintiff's administrator gives a personal undertaking (or acceptable alternative security) to repay any amount required if the defendant succeeds on appeal; retained at least USD 150,000 of the interim payment for expert and finalisation costs; authorised payment to solicitors of certified due and payable litigation expenses subject to certification; declined to determine now the s79 election/remedy questions and ordered a separate hearing to decide whether the defe…
23 Sept 2021

PRUDENCE ANNE ADDLEMAN v LAMBIE TRUSTEE LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2504

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2504
Court

High Court

The court refused the stay. It held New Zealand was the more appropriate forum because the trust is governed by New Zealand law, the trustee and many relevant parties and trust assets are in New Zealand, adjudication in New Zealand avoids duplication and risk of inconsistent judgments, and efficiency and justice require the fourth cause of action against Edmonton Co Pty Ltd be heard with the related claims in New Zealand; questions of Panamanian and Australian law could be proven by expert evidence but did not justify severing Edmonton to Australia.
21 Dec 2020

ROBERT JOHN HERD AND RHUMBA HOLDINGS LIMITED v RODNEY DAVID HAINES AND KATHLEEN ANNE NORMAN [2020] NZSC 155

Citation

[2020] NZSC 155
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised fact‑specific issues about contractual construction under Vanuatu law without any matter of general or public importance or appearance of miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal correctly held clause 2.1(b) was sufficiently certain, clause 11 was not required to fill a gap, and the vendor's obligations were sequential such that failure to pay constituted breach.
30 Sept 2020

HILL FOREST SERVICES LTD v CIRRUS DESIGN CORP [2020] NZHC 2551

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2551
Court

High Court

Hill Forest failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried because it produced no competent evidence of a contractual relationship with Cirrus beyond two US bills of sale and its pleading did not plead the formation, terms or timing of any contract with Cirrus or an agency relationship by the other defendants; combined with the balance of forum conveniens factors (parties, witnesses, documents, applicable law and centrality of US FAA form documents), New Zealand was not the appropriate forum and the Court must dismiss the protests and the claim for want of jurisdiction.
22 Sept 2020

GLENN WILLIAM SCHAEFFER v JAMES JOSEPH MURREN [2020] NZSC 98

Citation

[2020] NZSC 98
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed ground that the High Court was required to apply Nevada law despite no pleading or proof of foreign law lacked merit under established conflict-of-laws principles that require pleading and proof of foreign law and default to domestic law; the other grounds were fact-specific and would not alter the outcome given the negligent misstatement finding would remain.