New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Default fees

Legal area

Court

12 May 2016

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2016] NZSC 53

Citation

[2016] NZSC 53
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal: ss 41–44 must be interpreted transaction‑specifically so that fees are reasonable only to the extent they recover costs or losses sufficiently close and relevant to the particular steps to which the fee relates; permissible cost recovery is generally variable/transaction‑specific costs with limited inclusion of fixed costs where proven; broad allocation of general overheads or a beneficial‑relationship/avoidable‑cost approach is not permitted.
24 Mar 2015

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND MOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION CA727/2013 AND CA593/2014 [2015] NZCA 78

Citation

(2015) 14 TCLR22
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that ss 41, 42 and 44 must be applied so that fees are justified by costs that are sufficiently close and relevant to the enumerated fee activity; the broad 'beneficial relationship' or full cost absorption approach is rejected; High Court findings that Sportzone/MTF charged unreasonable fees were upheld; where loss is proved s 94 relief (repayment) is available.
25 Oct 2013

COOPER v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2827

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2827
Court

High Court

Applying a liberal, facilitative approach to r 4.24 consistent with Houghton and Saunders, the Court found sufficient commonality of interest across the pleaded groups (noting limited distinctions confined to the CCFA/Consumer Group claim) and granted the representation order as sought; it approved the funder and funding agreement, ordered bank-backed security for costs as agreed, required agreed particulars of group members, and fixed an opt-in deadline of midnight 13 December 2013 (NZ time).
27 Sept 2013

COMMERCE COMMISSION v SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (in liquidation) [2013] NZHC 2531

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2531
Court

High Court

The Court held that "in connection with" and "in relation to" must be read narrowly in context: a creditor may only recover by fees those costs that are sufficiently close and relevant to the particular transaction or event (variable costs and narrowly attributable fixed costs proven to be directly related); general overheads and remote fixed costs are not recoverable by credit or default fees and should be recovered via interest. Third-party credit check charges included within a disclosed establishment fee did not require separate disclosure under s17. The misleading conduct claim under s9…
1 Jun 2012

ROBINSON v BUDGET LOANS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2011-485-002527

Citation

openlaw-5797b96a_baf1_49e2_b54f_8ee7d0852b6c.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 28(2)(a)(i) excludes amounts payable solely by reason of acceleration from the reinstatement sum; although Budget's notices incorrectly included accelerated balances and used value ranges, the errors were not deliberate, the appellant (through counsel) knew of his rights and was not materially misled, and therefore the notices were not void; range estimates are acceptable if the creditor would accept the bottom of the range; no adequate evidence supported findings of oppressive conduct or unreasonable fees.

New Zealand Case Law

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2016] NZSC 53

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND MOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION CA727/2013 AND CA593/2014 [2015] NZCA 78

COOPER v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2827

COMMERCE COMMISSION v SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (in liquidation) [2013] NZHC 2531

ROBINSON v BUDGET LOANS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2011-485-002527