New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable contribution

Legal area

Court

29 May 2023

LOBB v RYAN [2023] NZHC 1297

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1297
Court

High Court

The extinguishing of the joint Westpac liability by repayment/refinancing was a transaction falling within s 4 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; s 4 displaces the equitable doctrine of contribution in respect of qualifying transactions between spouses, so the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable contribution and the plaintiff's remedy (if any) must be pursued as an application under the Act in the Family Court; therefore the defendant's protest to jurisdiction is upheld and the proceeding dismissed.
7 Apr 2021

ZHANG V GUO [2021] NZHC 714

Citation

[2021] NZHC 714
Court

High Court

No breach of moral duty: plaintiff received substantial benefit by survivorship (half-share of Greenhithe subject to mortgage and $43,950) and was not shown to need maintenance or support; equitable contribution refused because under Administration Act s34 the Greenhithe property (the asset purchased with the loans) is primarily liable for the mortgage and the Glenfield property is not liable due to deceased's testamentary intention; unjust enrichment not pursued and would fail; order made to ensure mortgage security is limited to properties owned by plaintiff; costs to second defendant.
2 Oct 2020

PENLEY LTD v ATTORNEY GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2601

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2601
Court

High Court

Leave to join Texco Excavating Ltd was granted under r4.4(1)(a) because the Attorney-General demonstrated a realistic entitlement to contribution from Texco for the same damage alleged by Penley and joinder better serves the interests of justice by avoiding multiplicity, inconsistent findings, facilitating discovery and settlement; delay did not outweigh these considerations. The particular discovery application was partially dismissed and partially adjourned for further, proportionate engagement with specified categories and a timetable for submissions.
17 Oct 2018

PERROTT-HUNT v JOHNSTON (No.3) [2018] NZHC 2678

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2678
Court

High Court

A bankrupt's discharge under s304 extinguished potential liability for equitable contribution because contingent contribution liabilities were provable in the bankruptcy; accordingly Corban Revell cannot pursue contribution against Maurice Hunt after his discharge unless they properly plead and can prove actual fraud or fraudulent breach of trust falling within s304(2)(a); 'fraud' in s304 requires actual dishonesty and must be pleaded with particularity.
19 Dec 2017

ZHONG v ONG & OR [2017] NZHC 3242

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3242
Court

High Court

The court held that unequal equity and expense contributions must be repaid to each co-owner based on actual payments before dividing any remaining sale proceeds equally; the court accepted Mr Maitland's schedule and credited an additional $3,000 to Mr Zhong.
15 Mar 2016

MARK STEPHEN HOTCHIN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2016] NZSC 24

Citation

[2016] 1 NZLR 906
Court

Supreme Court

Majority held that contribution under s 17(1)(c) depends on liability in respect of the same damage and that this requires identifying the overlap of legal liability (shared liability in respect of the same harm) rather than importing an additional narrow requirement that parties have identical or 'coordinate' duties; on the pleadings there was arguable overlap so the appellant's third‑party contribution claim could not be struck out and may proceed to trial (equitable contribution governed by the same same‑damage principle); final apportionment and just and equitable considerations remain fo…
3 Feb 2016

PHIL & TEDS MOST EXCELLENT BUGGY COMPANY LIMITED v OUT 'N' ABOUT ATP LIMITED [2016] NZHC 71

Citation

[2016] NZHC 71
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was appropriate in part: on construction the 2004, 2008 and 2011 agreements allocated product liability risk to ONA and precluded restitution, statutory or equitable contribution for settlements under those agreements; the 2012 sales agreement, however, potentially left liability with Phil & Teds if a written specification existed and was breached, so ONA had an arguable restitution/mistake claim limited to products under the 2012 agreement; ONA's February 2014 commission loss was reasonably arguable above £25,000; set-offs for the arguable counterclaims reduced Phil & Teds'…
15 Aug 2014

HOTCHIN V THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED CA494/2013 [2014] NZCA 400

Citation

[2014] 3 NZLR 685
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the appeal must fail because contribution under s 17(1)(c) (and equitable contribution) requires that the parties be liable in respect of the identical, indivisible damage grounded in a common/co‑ordinate obligation; the directors' duty to avoid misleading prospectus statements and the trustees' duty to monitor compliance with trust deeds were different in nature and extent, so the trustees could not be liable for the same damage as the director; accordingly the High Court's strike‑out of the appellant's third party claims was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2012

COUTTS AND ANDERSON AS TRUSTEES OF THE BARLEY STATION TRUST V DAVENPORTS HARBOUR LAWYERS HC AK CIV-2011-404-4430

Citation

openlaw-b3584e03_1af9_45e9_98bf_485655c2db79.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying the narrow Royal Brompton approach as endorsed in Altimarloch, Davenports and the builders are not liable in respect of the same damage and do not share a coordinate liability of the same nature and extent; therefore contribution is unavailable under s17 and in equity and the third party notices must be set aside.
10 Jan 2012

VICTORIA STREET APARTMENTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) and ANOR v SHARMA and ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-008377

Citation

openlaw-479f2c14_3977_4eb4_b1c0_fa7b6cf645aa.pdf
Court

High Court

The third party claim was dismissed because the pleaded and proved facts did not establish a common liability or common demand between the third party claimants and Mr Watt, the pleading was deficient as it did not put Mr Watt on notice of accessory or restitutionary liability, prior factual findings attributed knowing breaches to Mr Sharma (precluding reliance on mistake or direction by Mr Watt), the amounts actually traceable to Mr Watt were minimal, and equitable principles and public policy (unclean hands, attempts to evade bankruptcy constraints) disentitled the claimants to contribution.