New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Doctrine of merger

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2016

CLARK v CENTRAL LAKES HOMES LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2164

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2164
Court

High Court

The application to recall was dismissed because the respondent effectively sought variation of the District Court's order on interest without having filed a cross-appeal; the appellate court will not vary the lower court's judgment on post-judgment interest in those circumstances, so recall was unnecessary and inappropriate (the court did not need to decide definitively whether clause 55 excluded merger).
1 Dec 2014

AHURIRI and ORS v ETHEREDGE [2014] NZHC 3031

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3031
Court

High Court

The Buckton plan realignment is just and equitable under ss 339-343; the proposed building sites must be allocated to K3A because joint owners have reasonable and evidenced expectations to enable potential dwelling sites; the unconsented Tahitahi house is excluded from valuation and the respondent cannot belatedly change valuation stance after close of evidence; the occupancy right gave no compensable loss once merged into legal title; K3B exceeds K3A by $21,000 so respondent must pay equalisation compensation of $10,500; partition costs to be shared equally.
10 Jul 2013

RIDGECREST NEW ZEALAND LTD V IAG NEW ZEALAND CA811/2012 [2013] NZCA 291

Citation

[2013] 3 NZLR 618
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the insured's claims were made under the policy's replacement cover (clause C2); insurer's liability for repairable damage is the actual cost of repairs undertaken after each happening and, if the building became irreparable, liability is the replacement cost up to the policy limit for that happening; therefore the insured was not entitled to be paid estimated restoration costs for each happening irrespective of whether repairs were completed, and the High Court's negative answer to the preliminary question was confirmed.
10 May 2013

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V KEVIN JOHN WHITLEY HC AK CIV-2011-404-007335

Citation

openlaw-b20b1936_0f5a_48cd_a953_34beeaa6808e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under r 4.52 to substitute Mr Whitley and Mr Noble as plaintiffs notwithstanding that judgment had already been entered; the deed of assignment, once operative on payment, conveyed all rights to the assignees such that substitution was necessary and desirable to enable them to enforce the judgment/security, and accordingly the order should be made.
8 Nov 2012

RIDGECREST NZ LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-000295

Citation

openlaw-1916bb6c_3def_4aca_8169_dabf21ce5489.pdf
Court

High Court

Clauses C1 and C2 are capable of both applying under replacement cover but merger does not automatically apply to general material damage policies; however on the facts the insurer's chosen mode of part-performance (effecting repairs) followed by subsequent insured events that made completion impossible meant that the insurer's obligation to meet the full contractual liability was frustrated — the insured is not entitled to additional payments beyond amounts necessary to effect parts of repairs actually undertaken before the building became irreparable plus the policy limit for the happening…
4 May 2012

CARR V HUMPHRIES HC DUN CIV-2006-412-000513

Citation

openlaw-68abfa46_d835_410b_9c83_f71e2cb23326.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the summary judgment fixed the interest calculation at 30 November 2006 and that the defendant is not entitled to interest beyond that date notwithstanding subsequent appeals; accordingly the Court ordered specific directions to implement the 16 November 2006 judgment including provision of settlement documentation and timelines and reserved contempt consequences for non‑compliance.
3 Mar 2011

TRUSTEES OF NGA MAUNGA KAITAIKI TRUST v KORDIA LTD HC ROT CIV-2008-463-000301

Citation

openlaw-a42ea29e_4dce_4f83_8a9b_fa914539e74d.pdf
Court

High Court

Entry into the 1995 finite licence did not constitute an express and unequivocal decision by BCL/Kordia to forgo the statutory protection afforded to existing works by s20 (Telecommunications Act 1987) or s155 (Telecommunications Act 2001); therefore Kordia retained the statutory right to have its installations (and additions that do not substantially alter their character or location) fixed on the Maunga. A network operator can abandon protection but must do so clearly; absent that, statutory protection continues and ownership does not merge with the landowner.

New Zealand Case Law

CLARK v CENTRAL LAKES HOMES LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2164

AHURIRI and ORS v ETHEREDGE [2014] NZHC 3031

RIDGECREST NEW ZEALAND LTD V IAG NEW ZEALAND CA811/2012 [2013] NZCA 291

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V KEVIN JOHN WHITLEY HC AK CIV-2011-404-007335

RIDGECREST NZ LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-000295

CARR V HUMPHRIES HC DUN CIV-2006-412-000513

TRUSTEES OF NGA MAUNGA KAITAIKI TRUST v KORDIA LTD HC ROT CIV-2008-463-000301