New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conspiracy to defraud

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2023

MOEKE v RAUKAWA IWI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1952

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1952
Court

High Court

The Court found the December 2018 documents were prepared for a dishonest purpose within the meaning of s 67 Evidence Act 2006 because the Liability Judgment had already found dishonest conduct in the defendants' scheme to deprive the plaintiff of his land interest; therefore solicitor-client privilege in respect of those 2018 documents was set aside. Redactions for solicitor-client privilege were ordered removed where they related to those documents; redactions for irrelevance were upheld. Non-party discovery was ordered narrowly: Bracken must swear an affidavit confirming he holds no furthe…
19 Jun 2023

HALSE v RANGIURA TRUST BOARD & ORS [2023] NZHC 1519

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1519
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the entire proceeding because the statement of claim failed to plead the elements of deceit, fraud, conspiracy or knowing assistance with the required particularity and on its face relied on untenable factual assertions inconsistent with the undisputed record; the pleadings were frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process as collateral attacks on prior ERA and Employment Court determinations; alternatively summary judgment would have been entered; an extended order under s166 was justified because the plaintiff had brought at least two totally without merit proceedings an…
15 Jun 2023

R v ORTMANN [2023] NZHC 1504

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1504
Court

High Court

The Court selected the fraud conspiracy charges as the lead offences because they more directly captured the core criminality. A cumulative sentencing approach was available and appropriate to reflect distinct aspects of the conspiracies. The defendants' culpability was assessed as high given the scale, sophistication, duration (2005–2012), deliberate measures to incentivise infringement and concealment, and significant commercial gain. The Court fixed starting points of 10 years 6 months (Ortmann) and 10 years (van der Kolk) and applied a combined 60% discount for early guilty pleas and assi…
4 Dec 2019

MOEKE v RAUKAWA IWI DEVELOPMENT LTD [2019] NZHC 3166

Citation

(2019) 21 NZCPR 493
Court

High Court

The Court found Raukawa repudiated the sale and purchase agreement and is liable for breach of contract; both respondents acted with notice of the applicant's equitable interest and the Council's acquisition constituted land transfer fraud; land transfer fraud can constitute 'unlawful means' for the tort of conspiracy depending on facts; the respondents' asserted public interest justification did not provide an arguable defence to liability; accordingly summary judgment was entered for liability against Raukawa for breach of contract and against both respondents for tortious conspiracy, with…
7 May 2019

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ANDERSON [2019] NZHC 979

Citation

[2019] NZHC 979
Court

High Court

There is no issue estoppel because there was no final determination between the same parties or their privies on the same pleaded issues; the criminal discharges did not decide the determinative elements of Westpac's civil causes of action; and Westpac's compensatory civil claim does not constitute an abuse of process or collateral attack on the criminal proceedings, so Westpac is not precluded from proceeding.
20 Feb 2017

ORTMANN v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2017] NZHC 189

Citation

[2017] NZHC 189
Court

High Court

The High Court confirmed the District Court properly determined eligibility: the conduct alleged in the US superseding indictment, read in context, falls within Article II.16 (conspiracy to defraud) and, where applicable, is captured by NZ statutory offences (Crimes Act ss228,249,240 and s98A) deemed into the US–NZ Treaty by s101B; the Record of the Case and its s25 certificates were admissible and preserved evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case under s24(2)(d); the Copyright Act s131 criminal provisions do not reach 'making available' online (that right was not criminalised in…
11 Dec 2014

MA v TAY & ORS CA643/2013 [2014] NZCA 608

Citation

[2014] NZCA 608
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant leave under s 76(2) to continue an appeal where the respondent is bankrupt; leave was granted because there was a real benefit to the appellant if the appeal succeeded and the appeal met the threshold of being sustainable on its pleaded basis (sufficient evidence of causation for a distress claim at a threshold level). The appeal was allowed and the High Court costs order against the appellant was set aside; no order for costs on appeal.
20 Feb 2014

MA v TAY [2014] NZHC 232

Citation

[2014] NZHC 232
Court

High Court

The Court found the plaintiff's fraud and conspiracy causes of action were not properly particularised, lacked evidentiary foundation and were pursued in disregard of facts and law; although indemnity costs were not warranted on the narrow balance, the plaintiff unreasonably refused a realistic settlement and pursued meritless contentions, thereby contributing at least 50% of unnecessary expense; accordingly 2B scale costs of $28,855 were uplifted by 50% resulting in an award of $43,282.50 to the defendants.
4 Sept 2013

MA v TAY [2013] NZHC 2292

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2292
Court

High Court

Claims for general damages were dismissed because the material and substantial cause of the plaintiff's distress was the prior Westpac judgment and the plaintiff's own earlier conduct; the fraud claim failed because 'fraud' was not pleaded as a recognized cause (eg deceit) and the facts did not establish knowingly false representations by the defendant; conspiracy claims failed because there was no intention to harm the plaintiff and no established unlawful means or likely-to-cause-loss state of mind by the conspirators.
4 Oct 2012

TIAN MIN (MAGGIE) MA V TONY MENG HIANG TAY HC AK CIV-2011-404-008215

Citation

openlaw-a8890e03_7f68_444c_8f6b_daf6add0604f.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjournment of the general damages hearing is granted; the defendants are entitled to a costs award for the wasted preparation because they were ready to proceed and the plaintiff elected not to; by analogy to Schedule 3 allocations for defended interlocutory applications a reduced award is appropriate here, resulting in a costs award of $1,750 in favour of the defendants for the adjournment.