New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disgorgement

Legal area

Court

8 May 2023

CAYMAN SPECTRUM (NZ) CO v SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LTD [2023] NZHC 1063

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1063
Court

High Court

The challenged paragraphs were struck out because they were irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action and Spark's knowledge at the time of entering the agreements, would require extensive unrelated evidence and cross-examination, and would cause unfair prejudice, delay and complexity; propensity reasoning and post hoc anti-competitive allegations could not properly be used to prove Spark's knowledge for the dishonest assistance claim.
6 Mar 2020

FAAGUTU v DERHAMY [2020] NZHC 404

Citation

[2020] NZHC 404
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the Ali Mudharaba entered December 2014: the deceased and his wife were subject to undue influence and entered an unconscionable bargain facilitated by the first defendant; the relationship was fiduciary in scope and the first defendant and his company breached fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material facts and misapplying funds; plaintiff entitled to equitable compensation of $288,000 (principal net of dividends) plus interest (rate and period to be determined) and $10,000 general damages; ancillary accounting and procedural directions ordered.
17 Mar 2017

DAVIS v WHITE Costs Judgment [2017] NZHC 500

Citation

[2017] NZHC 500
Court

High Court

Applicants acted unreasonably by pursuing an untenable position (relying on a draft deed and arguing the Freemasons were entitled to the whole fund) contrary to earlier advice that respondent was entitled to the assets; indemnity costs were not awarded because applicants relied on counsel's opinion, but an increased award was warranted; the court therefore awarded a 50% uplift on 2B costs ($34,119 plus $1,928.72 disbursements) in favour of the respondent and ordered the applicants personally to pay 50% of their own legal fees and barred them from recourse to trust funds to satisfy the awarded…
25 May 2016

EBR HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v VAN DUYN & OTHERS [2016] NZHC 1112

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1112
Court

High Court

Leave to amend the defendants' statement of defence and third party claim was granted but conditional: the trial was adjourned and the defendants were ordered to pay specified sums and provide an undertaking as to limitation by a fixed deadline; failure to comply would result in debarment from defending the plaintiffs' claim or striking out the third party claim and revocation of the leave to amend.
17 Apr 2015

TAYLOR JADE SCHMIDT v NOEL ROBERT HAIR [2015] NZSC 40

Citation

[2015] NZSC 40
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly found the respondent had an indefeasible title and there was no evidence the respondent purchased at an undervalue or made a profit that would sustain claims in knowing receipt or unjust enrichment; the applicant's factual challenges did not raise issues of general or public importance nor a miscarriage of justice to justify leave.
15 Dec 2014

LIBRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v CLARK [2014] NZHC 3148

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3148
Court

High Court

The Court held that the cessation of interest was linked to the project‑by‑project actual or notional winding up/completion dates fixed by the Court and that, for those notional winding ups, the notional proceeds reduce the amount on which interest is payable (i.e. the interest liability is reduced project‑by‑project and is not confined to interest on lending that was strictly project‑specific). The plaintiffs' application to give effect to that construction was granted in respect of the three projects identified.
8 Jul 2014

HOLLAND CORPORATE LIMITED v HOLLAND & MANTHEL [2015] NZHC 1407

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1407
Court

High Court

On the evidence (and absence of contrary evidence from the defendant), the Court found the first defendant repeatedly breached fiduciary duties by (a) performing consultancy work using the Holland Corporate name and brand while directing payments to entities under his control, (b) diverting opportunities and payments (groups one and two) and (c) concealing and appropriating a lucrative engagement with Glen Eagles (group three). The company was entitled to an account of profits for amounts actually received (AU$419,725.50) and equitable compensation for lost opportunities (AU$156,700 and NZ$45…
20 Dec 2012

PRASAD v PARAI and ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-003530

Citation

openlaw-e17782dc_5aed_41c7_81a9_310baa5e2868.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal challenged factual findings that were not realistically open to challenge and was therefore an unnecessary, meritless step under r 14.6(3)(b)(ii); this justified increasing scale costs to actual costs, awarding respondents $10,297.50 plus reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar.
31 Aug 2012

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CORP V PRIMARY DISTRIBUTORS NZ LTD COA CA37/2011

Citation

openlaw-72e01c51_ce28_460b_b869_13dc58f4ae5d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appellants failed to prove that any portion of the directors' management fees constituted profits attributable to the infringing Hefty sales; while Leplastrier is not absolute law and directors must disgorge remuneration proven to be profit from infringement, the evidence here was insufficient to establish such attribution so the High Court ruling refusing disgorgement was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
13 Jun 2011

JAMES ROBERT REID V SUZANNE LYNNE COTTLE HC PMN CIV-2010-454-582

Citation

openlaw-78e2362b_301e_47de_b254_d33ef23128b0.pdf
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were declined because the new proceedings were not plainly vexatious or frivolous: Court of Appeal judgments recognised merit in an account of profits, the res judicata analysis was not straightforward, and parties/issues were not identical. Ordinary scale costs (2B) were appropriate. Mr Reid, as trustee, may be indemnified from the trust under Trustee Act s38. Cooper Rapley, as solicitor-litigant/party, is entitled to recover costs.