New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaration

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2023

TARAHAU FARMING LIMITED v SHEARING SERVICES KAMUPENE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2023] NZSC 129

Citation

[2023] NZSC 129
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the sole issue properly before the Court of Appeal — whether the company had been validly placed in voluntary administration under the Companies Act 1993 — was conceded by the applicant, leaving no contested issue for this Court to decide and rendering it unnecessary in the interests of justice to grant leave under s 74(1) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
19 Jun 2023

RYAN v LOBB [2023] NZHC 1518

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1518
Court

High Court

On objective contract interpretation the Mortgage did not secure WAG's loan to Mr Lobb because the advance was a past payment made prior to the transfer of the Mortgage and was not money owed by the registered proprietors acting as trustees; accordingly declarations were made that the registered proprietors owe no money to WAG and the Mortgage does not secure repayment of any debt or obligation, and WAG was ordered to take steps to discharge the Mortgage under s 83 PLA; the application for a stay was dismissed because the appeal was weak and the balance of convenience favoured implementation…
13 Jun 2023

McGUINNESS v WANGANUI RANGITIKEI BUILDING SOCIETY [2023] NZHC 1461

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1461
Court

High Court

The judge was satisfied on the applicant's uncontradicted evidence that the mortgage had been paid in full, that the Building Society ceased to exist and no successor could be identified, and that under ss 109(1)(a) and 110(a)(iii) of the Property Law Act 2007, and having regard to r 15.9 of the High Court Rules, the Court could declare the debt satisfied and discharge the mortgage.
31 May 2023

LMCHB LTD (formerly L&M Coal Holdings Limited) v BULLER COAL LTD [2023] NZHC 1366 [31 May 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1366
Court

High Court

The Court declined to award indemnity or increased costs because the plaintiff's conduct, while opportunistic and ultimately an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson, was not egregious or flagrant to meet the high threshold for indemnity; the proceeding was properly categorised as costs category 2 (2B), and the plaintiff was ordered to pay defendants costs on a 2B basis of $38,359.50 and disbursements of $10,906.45; defendants' claim for sealing fee reimbursement was disallowed and the plaintiff was allowed costs of $956 for preparing its costs memorandum.
2 May 2023

BEYNON v BURKLAKOVA [2023] NZHC 1012

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1012
Court

High Court

The defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to transfer the agreed one-sixth unit title; the defendant had agreed post-settlement to transfer the accessway title and took steps to do so but could not complete execution due to an invalidly executed power of attorney and residence in Russia; accordingly the appropriate and necessary remedy is a declaration that the defendant is bound by the agreement and authorization for the Registrar of the High Court to execute the Authority and Instruction to transfer the title to the plaintiff, consistent with precedent.
8 Jul 2022

COMMERCIAL FACTORS LIMITED v SCENIC HOTEL GROUP LIMITED [2022] NZCA 300

Citation

[2022] NZCA 300
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that an operating pre-contractual joint venture existed between Commercial Factors Ltd and Scenic Hotel Group Ltd from June 2011 until 26 March 2015; Pacific Hotels Ltd was not indebted to Factors for NZ$6.25m because Factors retained legal and beneficial ownership of the hotel and Pacific's occupation did not transfer beneficial title; declaratory relief as to existence and duration of the joint venture was appropriate but an order for the taking of an account was not ordered because Pacific's liquidation was inevitable and issues including entitlement to insurance proceeds we…
5 Jul 2022

CLEARMONT (QUEENSTOWN) LTD v REDWOOD GROUP LTD [2022] NZHC 1567 [4 July 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1567
Court

High Court

Clause 1.4 must be read according to its plain meaning and context to require a binding Inland Revenue ruling that all properties comprising the Five Mile Project (those owned by Gateway as at the settlement date 1 June 2019) were held on capital account as at that date; the court rejected interpretations making the ruling relate to an unspecified future date or only a subset of properties, because there was no mutual understanding the 10-year tainting rule was the sole route to avoid tax and the ordinary meaning and commercial context point to the settlement-date test.
10 Mar 2022

DELIU v THE INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY [2022] NZHC 413

Citation

[2022] NZHC 413
Court

High Court

Section 33 does not operate as an absolute ouster of the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain judicial review; s 17 requires IPCA to decide on a procedure for each complaint and to advise complainant and Commissioner; IPCA breached s 17 (and its notification obligations under s 18/s 30 where applicable) in respect of the first, third and fourth complaints by failing to decide and inform the complainant in a reasonable time; no sufficient evidence of bad faith was found; appropriate relief is a declaration of those failures and an order that IPCA consider the fifth complaint under s 17.
16 Dec 2021

PLATFORM HOMES LTD v GRANT [2021] NZHC 3492

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3492
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the application as moot because there was no live, tangible controversy: the applicants' votes would not have changed the outcome, no practical effect on their rights, no request for consequential orders under s239AMB, and the fact-specific timing issue (five days) was unsuitable for determination in a moot case.
18 Nov 2021

TAU & OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3108

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3108
Court

High Court

The application to determine the preliminary question was dismissed because there were difficult demarcation issues: the question could not be isolated from the Crown's positive defences (notably statutory modification/extinguishment), granting the application would effectively decide or foreclose those defences, there was insufficient demonstrated time-saving, and splitting the trial risked inefficiency and multiple appeals; novel tikanga-based rights are better resolved in a full factual trial context.