New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contributory conduct

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2021

SHABOR LIMITED v GRAHAM [2021] NZCA 448

Citation

(2021) 16 TCLR 177
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 27.3 did not, as a matter of fact, break the causal link between the vendor's misleading carrying-capacity representation and Shabor's loss for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act; accordingly the appellant succeeds on the FTA claim. The correct compensatory measure is the reduction in value ($530,000) reduced for contributory conduct (30%), yielding judgment of $371,000 plus interest from 3 June 2014 at 5%. Separately, clause 27.3, properly construed, precluded inquiry into reliance for the contractual misrepresentation claim and, on a s 50 CCLA evaluative assessment, it was fair and…
15 Feb 2021

ALKAZAZ v ENTERPRISE IT LTD [2021] NZCA 13

Citation

[2021] NZCA 13
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave was declined because the matters raised were factual or procedural misunderstandings rather than questions of law of general or public importance under s214, and the applicant failed to identify any legal error warranting the Court of Appeal's consideration.
8 Jun 2020

ZHANG v TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2020] NZCA 223

Citation

[2020] NZCA 223
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to file leave applications was granted due to genuine reasons for delay; however none of the proposed grounds of appeal raised a question of law of sufficient general or public importance to merit leave under s214 ERA; factual findings and discretionary assessments by the Employment Court (including counter-factual under s128, penalties under ss4A and 135, contributory reduction under s124, and costs assessment) did not disclose arguable questions of law; accordingly leave to appeal the substantive and costs judgments is dismissed.
7 Mar 2019

OCEANA GOLD (NZ) LTD v WORKSAFE NZ & CROPP LOGGING LTD v WORKSAFE NZ [2019] NZHC 365

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR137
Court

High Court

The High Court held (1) sentencing courts have jurisdiction under s 32 to order reparation for loss consequential on physical harm in favour of victims who are immediate family of a deceased victim; (2) where the loss is loss of earnings the correct approach is the 'statutory shortfall' method — reparation is limited to the difference between the pecuniary benefit the victim would have received and ACC entitlements for the period ACC pays, not an open-ended actuarial award of lifetime earnings; (3) victim contributory conduct should not generally reduce employer reparation in the sentencing c…
29 Nov 2011

HAMID V ENGLAND HC AK CIV-2009-404-003697

Citation

openlaw-0c72cdd6_49af_47e6_ae1d_a02c7ff4b15a.pdf
Court

High Court

Where multiple defendants are involved the court will apportion costs by assessing overall justice between the parties having regard to each defendant's role in the litigation, the outcome and overlap of arguments and evidence; costs apportionment need not mirror damages apportionment and may assign a greater share of costs to a defendant whose contribution to litigation expense exceeds its share of liability for loss. Applying that test the court apportioned costs 65% to the first defendant and 35% to the third defendant.
19 Aug 2010

MCKEOWN GROUP LIMITED V RUSSELL HC TIM CIV-2008-476-000530

Citation

openlaw-70fa0bfe_c7bd_4944_a3c0_c167cba19b96.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Russell repeatedly assured McKeowns she would personally pay PDSA's debt from house sale proceeds while lacking any intention to do so; that representation in trade was likely to mislead under s9 FTA and McKeowns relied on it causing loss; damages are assessed by the reliance measure equal to the unrecovered PDSA debt subject to a 50% reduction for McKeowns' contributory negligence; the limitation defence failed because the operative post‑overseas meeting occurred within three years of filing.
22 May 2008

SALT V FELL CA CA263/06

Citation

openlaw-60103447_4225_4380_a29c_1905277bf257.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The court dismissed the appeal. The majority held that subsequently discovered information could not be used under s 124 to justify reduction of remedies tied solely to the employer's knowledge at dismissal, but such information can and should be considered under the remedial provisions of s 123 (and relevantly s 128) when determining appropriate remedies; in any event post-dismissal misconduct relied upon must be reasonably connected to the reasons given for dismissal and proved to the court's satisfaction.
4 May 2005

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LTD V YUKICH CA CA42/04

Citation

openlaw-eac24855_d4ce_4e0e_9bbe_4214f8ec99ee.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Employment Court's factual findings — that Yukich probably would have remained employed until the 19 January 2003 redundancies, that contingencies were unlikely, and that his mitigation efforts were adequate — were open on the evidence and not reviewable as errors of law; the 58‑week lost remuneration award, the assessment of redundancy entitlement, and the treatment of mitigation were within the Judge's discretion, so the appeal was dismissed.
21 Jul 2004

Telecom NZ Ltd V Nutter CA CA127/03

Citation

openlaw-7e883a1b_333f_4291_b255_5cf9a66a0745.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that although the Employment Court was wrong to treat pre-August 2000 incidents as automatically irrelevant, the dismissal was nonetheless unjustifiable on the independent ground that Telecom failed to follow appropriate disciplinary procedure (notably absence of a written warning), and accordingly dismissed Telecom's appeal; the Court allowed the cross-appeal on quantum and substituted judgment for the respondent in the sum of NZD 55,000 (NZD 50,000 economic loss after 50% contribution discount and deduction for paid notice, plus NZD 5,000 non-economic loss) with interest and…