New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deceit (fraud)

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2020

A v C [2020] NZCA 592

Citation

[2020] NZCA 592
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal on the jurisdiction point: the High Court applied too high a threshold under r 6.29 by effectively resolving credibility and finding no plausible basis for representations made in New Zealand; recall of the default judgment was permissible as ancillary to the jurisdictional challenge, but the protest to jurisdiction must be referred back to the High Court for reconsideration without the credibility errors identified.
22 Jul 2020

SMITH v PRAIN [2020] NZHC 1766

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1766
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were not justified because plaintiffs did not act with the flagrant bad faith required for indemnity (no clear evidence they alleged dishonesty knowing it to be false); however increased costs were warranted because plaintiffs unreasonably pursued unmeritorious claims, recycled previously criticised pleadings, and failed to comply with directions and timelines. A 40% uplift on scale costs was appropriate for both successful defendants; the Calderbank walk-away offer did not justify indemnity costs.
12 Mar 2014

AMERICHIP INCORPORATED v DEAN [2014] NZHC 450

Citation

[2014] NZHC 450
Court

High Court

Although Americhip had a good arguable case that service out without leave was available under HCR r 6.27(2)(e) (property in NZ) and r 6.27(2)(g) (domicile), it failed to discharge the burden under r 6.29(1)(b) to show that New Zealand was the appropriate forum for trial. The decisive deceit cause of action arose in China/US, key evidence and applicable law were located overseas, and the NZ-centric equitable claims were parasitic on the overseas deceit claim; accordingly the proceeding was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and defendant's application granted.
4 Sept 2007

KERRIDGE V KERRIDGE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001393

Citation

openlaw-c285050e_370e_4c51_9458_b5507a4f5299.pdf
Court

High Court

The Property (Relationships) Act s4 does not displace the plaintiff's tort causes of action because those claims are not transactions between spouses transferring property; s4(4) does not mandate striking out but prescribes how relationship property questions are to be determined. The Limitation Act six‑year bar applies to omissions and breaches that accrued in 1998 and those parts of the pleading are statute‑barred. The plaintiff failed to establish a fairly arguable case of fraudulent concealment under s28 to postpone limitation for those time‑barred parts. Consequently specified paragraphs…
21 Mar 2007

GILL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD V IVAN WEAVERS TYRE CENTRE LTD AND ANOR HC BLE CIV-2003-406-026

Citation

openlaw-e6da09bd_48a9_425e_adcf_a69ef4b943fa.pdf
Court

High Court

On the evidence the Court found Weaver systematically and wilfully invoiced Gill for tyres not supplied during the claim period, breaching its bailment and fiduciary duties; Mr and Mrs Weaver were personally liable for deceit and for procuring and perpetuating the company's breach of fiduciary duty; damages were assessed at $975,956 with a 10% contingency deduction resulting in judgment of $878,360 plus interest calculated by year‑end accruals; exemplary damages were declined; the first defendant's counterclaim for unpaid invoices of $15,210 was allowed.

New Zealand Case Law

A v C [2020] NZCA 592

SMITH v PRAIN [2020] NZHC 1766

AMERICHIP INCORPORATED v DEAN [2014] NZHC 450

KERRIDGE V KERRIDGE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001393

GILL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD V IVAN WEAVERS TYRE CENTRE LTD AND ANOR HC BLE CIV-2003-406-026