New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable compensation

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2022

9bedfddf-7ea3-4666-b129-beb8dc2d6de2.pdf

Citation

openlaw-6c6ab34e_3f72_4db5_9bab_6d58fedd9d56.pdf
Court

High Court

The $200,000 advances were direct contributions to the Grahamtown property made in circumstances where the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation, acknowledged by the first defendant and acquiesced in by the second trustee, that the advances would be recognised by a 20% beneficial interest; trustees of the SKFT, having accepted and benefited from those advances without formal objection, were bound in conscience to yield that interest, giving rise to a constructive trust; a life interest was not established or workable after separation; equitable compensation in lieu was appropriate and quanti…
14 Sept 2022

D AND E LTD v A, B AND C [2022] NZCA 430

Citation

[2022] 3 NZLR 566
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal (majority) held that while the parent-child relationship is fiduciary while the parent has care and responsibility for the child, that fiduciary relationship ended when the parent ceased to care for the children; absent a continuing fiduciary power over adult children's proprietary interests, the father did not owe a continuing fiduciary duty to prevent transfers of his personal assets to the Trust decades after estrangement, so the transfers were not rescindable on fiduciary grounds and trustees were not liable as constructive trustees; remedies for the historical abuse a…
29 Jul 2021

KELLER v DAISLEY [2021] NZCA 351

Citation

[2021] NZCA 351
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the Kellers' appeal in the main proceedings: the High Court's award of $541,721 as equitable compensation for failure to issue Ark shares was set aside because the claim for non-issuance was not pleaded, was raised only in closing without formal amendment and caused procedural unfairness and prejudice; moreover there was no basis to characterise the contractual obligation to procure share issue as a fiduciary obligation. The Depot appeal was allowed in part (increase to fence panel damages by $577.50) and the chattel conversion appeal otherwise dismissed; the appea…
5 Feb 2021

HOLLANDS v SORENSEN [2021] NZHC 103

Citation

[2021] NZHC 103
Court

High Court

No actionable representation was proved that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of ownership; claimant's contributions were routine/maintenance and not of sufficient significance to establish a constructive trust; benefits and financial assistance provided by trustees/Trust materially outweighed any contributions; tracing of alleged gift into Surrey Street was not established; therefore claims in constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and knowing receipt fail and the defendants succeed.
29 Oct 2020

ENRIGHT v NEWTON, [2020] NZCA 529

Citation

[2020] NZCA 529
Court

Court of Appeal

Court held the cross-appeal on limitation succeeds: Terrence Enright was not put on sufficient notice in 2008 and his claim is not time-barred. Apportionment of vested income must be on a one-sixth basis to each income beneficiary. Tony (Shane A Enright) must account to the respondents and the second cross-appellant for $496,285 (being five-sixths of the net dividend of $595,542) — the benefit he received was the after-tax/net amount. SLH's retention of interest and a management fee was unconscionable; SLH must account as a knowing recipient for $382,288 (five-sixths of the total of interest…
15 Oct 2020

DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED v PICKERING [2020] NZHC 2705

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2705
Court

High Court

The Court awarded actual componentry and labour costs attributable to the defendants' failure to deliver the jointly developed system, deducting amounts plaintiffs were contractually obliged to reimburse; componentry recoverable was $117,350.59 and labour recoverable was $122,725, totaling $240,075.59; loss of profits was rejected as speculative and not proven on the required evidential basis.
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.
9 Oct 2019

PERERA v SINGH [2019] NZHC 2571

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2571
Court

High Court

The oral Agency Agreement and the later Power of Attorney/Deed created fiduciary obligations owed by the defendants to the plaintiff; defendants breached those duties by making numerous unauthorised withdrawals and transfers, failing to account and pay over rental income, improperly withdrawing insurance funds and failing to pay premiums and maintain adequate accounts; the relationship was not a binding commercial contract for Limitation Act purposes; equitable compensation was appropriate to restore plaintiff to the position he would have occupied but for the breaches and the court awarded d…
26 Feb 2019

SHARMA v MUNDATH (No.2) [2019] NZHC 266

Citation

[2019] NZHC 266
Court

High Court

The court will accept and adopt plaintiffs' transaction schedules at the summary judgment standard and a sealed judgment need not itemise interest calculations for each transaction; the Interest on Money Claims Act requires that interest be awarded and specified as to the initial amount and that further interest runs on the amounts of equitable compensation from the judgment date, but the Act does not permit interest to run on interest already accrued (no compounding).
11 Dec 2018

LI v YU & Ors [2018] NZHC 3248

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3248
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that Yu acted dishonestly and fraudulently in breaching his fiduciary duties and that his knowledge and intent can be imputed to Harv Properties (which he effectively controlled via Cheng). Consequently Harv Properties is not protected by s63 LTA against ejectment of the Tauroa property and must have title revested in the plaintiff; Harv Properties is also liable in equity to compensate the plaintiff for the lost equity in the three apartments to the sum of $658,100 (plus interest and costs). The plaintiff's claim for dishonest assistance agains…