New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conversion of chattels

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2021

KELLER v DAISLEY [2021] NZCA 351

Citation

[2021] NZCA 351
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the Kellers' appeal in the main proceedings: the High Court's award of $541,721 as equitable compensation for failure to issue Ark shares was set aside because the claim for non-issuance was not pleaded, was raised only in closing without formal amendment and caused procedural unfairness and prejudice; moreover there was no basis to characterise the contractual obligation to procure share issue as a fiduciary obligation. The Depot appeal was allowed in part (increase to fence panel damages by $577.50) and the chattel conversion appeal otherwise dismissed; the appea…
26 Nov 2019

McCOLLUM v THOMPSON [2019] NZHC 3090

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3090
Court

High Court

Defendants' claim for special damages for lost milk and progeny income was dismissed because at the time of conversion they had effectively ceased to trade and lacked realistic ability to use the animals (no milking facilities, lease dispute and barred access, no alternative property, herd uneconomic), the evidence quantifying future profits was unreliable, and the proper measure of loss was the capital value already credited.
28 Jun 2017

MCCOLLUM AND ORS v THOMPSON AND ANOR [2017] NZCA 269

Citation

[2017] NZAR 1106
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal: the 11 April 2013 letter constituted a valid demand under clause 17(i) of the GSA such that the 47 heifers became additional security as of that date (so any unlawful possession was limited to the two months prior); the receivers breached their duty by selling at an undervalue and damages for the sale shortfall are warranted; appellants could not on appeal reverse their prior position to deny agency of the receivers without unfair prejudice; quantum of limited conversion losses and Otonga Valley Road stock losses and interest are remitted to the High Court for de…
20 Nov 2015

ASB BANK LIMITED v WARD AND WARD [2015] NZHC 2909

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2909
Court

High Court

Bank established lack of any real defence to most of the claim; CCCFA disclosure requirements did not apply to unarranged overdrafts on the deduct account and continuing disclosure obligations were satisfied; lender liability and securitisation claims were not tenable; however the Wards raised arguable factual issues under s176 as to adequacy of marketing that could reduce bank's recovery by up to NZD 33,000 and an arguable conversion claim (max NZD 15,000) giving rise to equitable set-off; accordingly summary judgment granted in part for NZD 223,046.06 plus interest, and remaining issues per…
18 Dec 2013

LA FAMIA NO. 1 LIMITED v GAN and YU [2013] NZHC 3491

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3491
Court

High Court

Although there was a serious issue to be tried that LF1 left chattels at the premises and that some items were unaccounted for, the balance of convenience did not favor forcing Wigram to cease trading or to deliver up chattels because Wigram paid valuable consideration, there was insufficient evidence it had notice of LF1's specific claim, cessation would be disproportionate and damages or restitution at trial (and inspection to identify items) provide adequate protection.
29 Jun 2012

PETER RICHARD PRESCOTT V GRAHAM BRUCE ROBERTS HC AK CIV 2012-404-001128

Citation

openlaw-40e509bc_da46_4ed8_a527_63ccf376cc75.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff did not establish on admissible evidence that he had a continuing registerable security interest at the time of Turners' dealings, Western Bay Finance's earlier perfected security and exercise of power of sale extinguished any subordinate interest, the alleged $1,000 contract was not proved and material issues of fact and law remained; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the case was transferred to the District Court, with costs awarded to Turners.
6 Nov 2009

ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED V COORY HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-854

Citation

openlaw-acc634de_c3e2_4675_8185_a2b82a6cbc12.pdf
Court

High Court

Court found no arguable breach of s176: marketing was adequate, agent acted professionally and inquiries were extensive; misdescription was not shown to have caused loss; chattels dispute could give rise to a separate claim or equitable set-off but was not so closely bound up with the debt claim as to defeat summary judgment for the undisputed debt; accordingly summary judgment entered for principal and interest but execution stayed for an amount to cover the chattels claim and allowance for general damages pending resolution of the counterclaim.
24 Jul 2009

METALLIC ART LTD V HART AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2008-419-001482

Citation

openlaw-9321b537_39bf_43d8_9bc5_d3bc8ae38e1c.pdf
Court

High Court

Threshold for security was established (plaintiff impecunious) but the court exercised its discretion against ordering security because such an order would effectively prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim and the claim could not be said to have little chance of success given evidentiary foundation (withdrawn orders, alleged use of plant and suppliers by new business); accordingly defendants' application for security for costs was dismissed.
15 Apr 2008

MCNABB V THE COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2007-419-000712

Citation

openlaw-afde3ba4_1822_45d9_95f7_cecafb266c7c.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r23 (and r5) to receive documents faxed on the last day and to cure the technical non-compliance because the object of the limitation provision had been met; accordingly the limitation defence to the third defendant's strike out application was not sustained and the remainder of the strike out application was adjourned for directions.
19 Mar 2008

GRAHAM AND ANOR V WESTVIEW FUNERAL CARE LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-6229

Citation

openlaw-1c89672c_5376_4813_b56e_e37eca1c4cb5.pdf
Court

High Court

On the balance of factors the court concluded the plaintiff was impecunious before re-entry, the plaintiff's substantive claims had weak prospects of success on the evidence of rent arrears and lease rights to re-enter and to take fixtures, delay by applicants was not egregious and security for costs should be ordered; accordingly aggregate security of NZD 35,000 was ordered by 8 April 2008, proceedings stayed until provided, joinder of the former solicitor was declined, and costs of the application were awarded to the applicants on a 2B basis with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.