New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consequential loss

Legal area

Court

15 May 2020

MCKEE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 1002

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1002
Court

High Court

The High Court held consequential loss reparation must be calculated by reference to the victim's actual pre-injury earnings (37 hours per week) so the District Court's use of a 40-hour minimum wage basis was incorrect and reduced consequential reparation to $156,000; and the ACC lump-sum for permanent impairment compensates the injury itself and cannot be offset against reparation for consequential loss.
16 Jan 2018

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4

Citation

[2018] NZHC 4
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time was declined because, although there was an arguable jurisdictional point that the Authority might have modified the original decision, the claimed consequential losses were not reasonably consequential on the Ministry's decision and the appeal lacked sufficient merit or an arguable question of law to justify extending time; the substantive relief is more appropriately pursued in general proceedings.
18 Apr 2016

CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED v CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON & ANOR [2016] NZHC 710

Citation

[2016] NZHC 710
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because, on the limited material before the Court, it could not be concluded that the expert quantification and the remaining judicial issues were entirely discrete; the risk of inconsistent outcomes and significant prejudice to the plaintiff outweighed the limited prejudice to defendants, and the 16 May 2016 fixture was vacated.
26 Nov 2015

BODY CORPORATE 160361 v BC 2004 LIMITED AND BC 2009 LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2979

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2979
Court

High Court

The Court held plaintiffs were entitled to recover wasted costs measured by the methodology of the parties' quantity surveyor (Mr White) and awarded those wasted costs plus interest at the prescribed rate; issue estoppel precluded relitigation of the choice of wasted costs as the measure of compensatory loss; pleading deficiencies did not bar wasted costs because the claim for economic loss was of the same kind and defendants had notice and opportunity to address quantum and adduced/exchanged expert evidence by consent; increased costs as a separate adjustment were accepted in principle but t…
30 Sept 2008

BODY CORPORATE NO. 189855 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-005561

Citation

openlaw-799f804f_1156_4d03_b937_89b2dc6f158d.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found the discrepancy in the pleaded consequential loss figures was a minor clerical error arising from the third statement of claim and, having regard to the evidence of Mr Blackmore and the parties' joint memorandum, ordered the judgment amended under High Court Rules r540(4) to reflect the correct consequential loss amount of $5,720 for the owners of Units 13 and 14.
5 Aug 2008

TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-3450

Citation

openlaw-6f904e26_6a07_4092_bdf3_7fda7042d118.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that 'loss' means loss of the property (disappearance/no longer in possession) and therefore did not apply; 'damage' can be wider than 'physical damage' and covers situations where an event affecting the property (here the flooding) has impaired its value or usefulness or created a material risk of earlier malfunction; accordingly there was no 'loss' but there may have been 'damage' depending on factual proof that the flooding caused impairment or material risk as specified by the court.
23 Nov 2007

AOTEAROA INTERNATIONAL LTD V PAPER RECLAIM LTD HC AK CIV 2001-404-1799

Citation

openlaw-aabbd001_a3da_4eac_97c2_8f3eb0767cbf.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the pleaded claims for loss of revenue from third‑party sourced exports and the pleaded consequential losses (sale and diminution of farms) as currently pleaded disclose no reasonable cause of action and have no real prospect of success and are struck out; the commission claim is inadequately particularised and may be legally misformulated so particulars and calculation are ordered; broad discovery refused as oppressive; limited leave given to amend specified heads by set deadlines and timetable directions were imposed.

New Zealand Case Law

MCKEE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 1002

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4

CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED v CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON & ANOR [2016] NZHC 710

BODY CORPORATE 160361 v BC 2004 LIMITED AND BC 2009 LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2979

BODY CORPORATE NO. 189855 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-005561

TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-3450

AOTEAROA INTERNATIONAL LTD V PAPER RECLAIM LTD HC AK CIV 2001-404-1799