New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaratory judgments

Legal area

Court

30 May 2023

POUĀKANI CLAIMS TRUST v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 1336

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1336
Court

High Court

The 1993 Deed and the subsequent 2010 deeds of easement are part of the continuous contractual bargain originating in the 1988 Sale Deed and therefore the perpetual operating easements constituted 'interests in land' transferred pursuant to s 23 of the SOE Act; accordingly s 27A applied and memorials should have been recorded and may be added retrospectively consistent with the Treaty-consistent purposive interpretation of the SOE Act and the Land Transfer regime.
9 Aug 2021

Lusty & Ors v Thorburn & Ors [2021] NZHC 2045

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2045
Court

High Court

Recall dismissed: the judgment sufficiently addressed the pleaded issues. The court held the lease was invalid to the extent it conflicted with the Thorburn Trust deed and that granting specific performance would frustrate the trust's charitable purpose; that conclusion precluded any entitlement to damages for breach of contract or the need for the interpretative declarations sought. The absence of explicit usage of the words 'damages' or 'declaration' did not amount to a failure to determine issues and did not satisfy the high threshold for recall under r 11.9.
22 Oct 2020

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LIMITED v WETA ESTATE LIMITED [2020] NZSC 115

Citation

[2020] 1 NZLR 714
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that clauses 2.2 and 2.4 must be read together to give Savvy two consecutive three-year periods (up to 1 May 2015) to give notice; Savvy's 17 November 2014 notice was effective. Weta's wrongful repudiation by its 20 December 2010 notice caused Savvy's loss because the reversed Court of Appeal judgment did not break the causal chain; accordingly respondents are liable on the first and second causes and inquiries into damages are ordered.
19 Feb 2020

VAN LEEUWEN GROUP LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 215

Citation

[2020] 3 NZLR 502
Court

High Court

Section 11 of the Declaratory Judgments Act preserves the High Court's jurisdiction to authoritatively construe statutes so a stay under s162A(6)/Arbitration Act Sch1 Art8(1) is not automatic. The Court must exercise its discretion whether to stay; given the public law dimension, the large number of affected parties, limited prior arbitration/appeal guidance and access to justice concerns, the Attorney-General's application to strike out or stay was dismissed and the declaratory proceedings permitted to continue.
24 Jun 2011

JOHN PRICE BUILDERS LIMITED & OTHERS V TRINITY WHARF LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2010-470-654

Citation

openlaw-479fd5fa_23c2_4f6d_84da_24976547259c.pdf
Court

High Court

Trinity remained the registered proprietor of the stratum estates and thus constituted the body corporate; applicants are not proprietors/members. However, the applicants have arguable contractual and occupational interests such that their challenge is not so clearly untenable as to justify striking out; therefore the strike‑out application is dismissed and the proceedings may continue.
4 Dec 2008

BIRKENFELD V KENDALL CA CA570/2007

Citation

openlaw-a0516f2e_8bc3_446c_b625_e9e23d5c60ec.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the defendants had tendered the maximum sum recoverable under the statutory maritime limitation scheme, there was no useful purpose in continuing proceedings to determine negligence and continuation would be an abuse of process; accordingly a permanent stay was justified and declaratory relief was not available given the statutory framework.

New Zealand Case Law

POUĀKANI CLAIMS TRUST v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 1336

Lusty & Ors v Thorburn & Ors [2021] NZHC 2045

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LIMITED v WETA ESTATE LIMITED [2020] NZSC 115

VAN LEEUWEN GROUP LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 215

JOHN PRICE BUILDERS LIMITED & OTHERS V TRINITY WHARF LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2010-470-654

BIRKENFELD V KENDALL CA CA570/2007