New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages and interest

Legal area

Court

27 May 2021

WILLIAMS v TELLEN SYSTEMS NZ (2013) LTD [2021] NZHC 1199

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1199
Court

High Court

Tellen failed to prove material non-disclosures by Williams that would have entitled it to cancel the SPA; clause 5.3 did not preclude pre-existing dividend/bonus arrangements; SHA clause did not give rise to a fiduciary obligation of loyalty; statutory contracting-out provisions (s 5D FTA) and contractual terms supported exclusion of the FTA claim; accordingly Tellen's cancellation and recovery claims failed, Williams is entitled to the unpaid second $425,000 instalment plus contractual interest and to indemnities under the SHA (67% of specified guarantor payments), Tellen must pay Williams…
20 Dec 2018

SCULLY v HOLLAND [2018] NZHC 3440

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3440
Court

High Court

Leave to bring a late summary judgment application was refused because the plaintiff provided no satisfactory explanation for delay, the pleaded case and evidence lack sufficient particularity and admissible material to show no defence exists, and the plaintiff failed to comply with procedural affidavit requirements; summary judgment would therefore be declined and the matter returned to case management.
31 Oct 2018

HALL’S GROUP LIMITED & P & T TRUCKING LIMITED v ROWE and ROWE [2018] NZHC 2819 [31 October 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2819
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the defendants breached their duty by failing to adequately secure their cattle—the main gateway was effectively secured only by a single strand of hotwire which expert evidence established was inadequate and contrary to common practice in the locality; that breach caused the cattle to reach the highway and the plaintiffs' loss; the defendants failed to establish that the driver's illegal mobile phone use, slight excess speed or monocular vision materially contributed to the loss, so no reduction for contributory negligence was ordered; damages of $273,256.32 a…
31 Oct 2016

MEMELINK v GRINDLAY (BANKRUPT) [2016] NZHC 2589

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2589
Court

High Court

The court found on documentary and conduct evidence that Mrs Grindlay was a party to the contract; the Grindlays repudiated the contract by their November 2013 conduct but did not validly cancel under the Contractual Remedies Act because they were not ready and willing to perform and the defects alleged were not of sufficient gravity or proven misrepresentations to justify cancellation; plaintiff was entitled to damages under s9, reduced by the agreed book value of the three trucks ($8,213.33), yielding $176,786.67, with interest at 6.5% p.a. from 12 April 2014; defamatory statements were mad…
12 Jun 2014

EXTERIOR BUILDING CARE GOLEMAN LIMITED v AFO INDUSTRIAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY CALLED AIR FLUID OTAGO LIMITED) [2014] NZHC 1322

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1322
Court

High Court

Uncontradicted expert and factual evidence established the wagon drills, grout pumps and SDA system were structurally and functionally unfit for the contracted purpose and not of merchantable quality; time for delivery of SDAs was essential; Goleman validly repudiated and rejected the goods and is entitled to refund of amounts paid and prescribed interest; AFO's counterclaims fail because the goods/hire were defective and consideration failed.
24 Apr 2013

NELSON FORESTS LIMITED v THREE TUIS LIMITED HC NEL CIV-2010-422-000084

Citation

openlaw-9980b220_8d1c_4e90_83c7_38a6de2364ee.pdf
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the defendant Stephen Garnett dumped hot ashes onto the bank adjacent to the cabin which ignited the adjoining vegetation; that act caused the fire and, under s43 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977 (strict liability), Garnett and Three Tuis Limited (vicariously liable) are liable to plaintiffs; negligence liability to the neighbouring landowner is also established; plaintiffs entitled to quantified damages and firefighting costs with interest as ordered.
12 Mar 2010

RED EAGLE CORPORATION LTD V ELLIS SC 72/2009

Citation

RED EAGLE CORPORATION LTD V ELLIS SC 72/2009
Court

Supreme Court

Ellis's unqualified representations about Black's Sydney properties breached s9; because Ellis had a long‑standing reputation with Falkenstein and fully associated himself with the project his representations retained causal potency at the time the loan was advanced and were an effective cause of Red Eagle's loss; Ellis was not a mere conduit; Red Eagle's own carelessness was a contributory operative cause so a 50% apportionment of the principal loss was appropriate under s43.
7 Dec 2009

WH BRIEN V JO LESTER HC AK CIV 2009-404-6215

Citation

openlaw-47273be9_8513_474f_a75e_3ad9d4a9257c.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant induced the plaintiff to part with $190,000 by making material representations about the land transaction and project which the defendant did not intend to implement; the plaintiff relied on those representations and suffered loss; judgment awarded for repayment of the sums paid together with interest, costs and disbursements.
19 Oct 2007

M W ILLBRUCK V S L MARTEN HC AK CIV 2007-404-002873

Citation

openlaw-f04a0ff0_a12e_4cc3_af78_3b51b2526979.pdf
Court

High Court

The court was satisfied the defendant did not have an arguable defence: the promise to pay was not conditional as claimed, there was sufficient consideration in plaintiff's forbearance (releasing trust funds and related concessions) and the agreement to vary payment by deduction of the US$79,000 designer fee, and summary judgment was therefore appropriate for NZ$587,738 with interest and costs.
28 May 2007

WADE V TAURANGA HOTELS LIMITED HC ROT CIV 2006-463-000392

Citation

openlaw-e480b559_8a7e_4b64_8f25_f1ad57437897.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the written sale agreement proved; the defendant by conduct (taking possession, pursuing licences, negotiating leases and refurbishments) represented it would not enforce strict contractual conditions and was estopped/waived from denying performance; the supply did not qualify as a going concern so GST was payable under the contract; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to the purchase price plus GST less a rent credit and interest, with costs on a 2B basis.