New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estoppel per rem judicatam

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2017

BDM GRANGE LTD v TRIMEX (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1259

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1259
Court

High Court

The benefits proceeding was an abuse of process and barred because BDM Grange knowingly failed to plead and abandoned a late amendment in earlier litigation and thus cannot relitigate the matter against Trimex Australia and its privy; independently the restitutionary/quantum meruit claim had no real prospect of success because the Trimex parties were not enriched at BDM Grange's present expense and any benefit flowed indirectly via independent retailers, so summary judgment for the defendants was ordered and the application to set aside the statutory demand dismissed (BDM Grange ordered to co…
20 Apr 2011

BK SIA-FOX V JUBILEE MANAGEMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC PMN CIV-2010-454-771

Citation

openlaw-bec0516a_15d6_42ee_b843_8847be13b7ef.pdf
Court

High Court

The earlier interlocutory judgment by Joseph Williams J, having considered extensive affidavit material and submissions, definitively concluded it was not reasonably arguable that the liquidator was not entitled to treat the Interim Agreement as at an end; that determination is sufficiently final to found an estoppel per rem judicatam and therefore the plaintiff's second cause of action is precluded and must be struck out as disclosing no reasonably arguable cause of action.
27 Jul 2009

PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-0856

Citation

openlaw-44d6c58f_8e55_423b_b2ac_19c0bd5e20f0.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendants established to the required summary judgment standard that Mr Prasad was a privy of SGL and thus bound by the District Court judgment; however defendants failed to prove that the District Court decision covered the same temporal scope of alleged infringements relied on by Mr Prasad in this proceeding, so summary judgment for defendants could not be granted; plaintiff's summary judgment application failed for non-compliance with Rule 12.4(5)(b).
26 Mar 2007

F A BORRELL V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-000676

Citation

openlaw-92a7f3bc_4142_4f43_9b10_6ec524130db4.pdf
Court

High Court

A Parole Board's decision that it lacks jurisdiction and therefore declines to determine a recall application is not a final determination on the merits and cannot found estoppel per rem judicatam; the subsequent warrant issued on the later recall application was therefore not rendered invalid by the earlier jurisdictional finding and the applicant's detention is lawful, so the habeas corpus application is refused.
19 Jun 2003

DAVID RICHARD INNES GAY And Ors V DAVID DAWSON BRUNS CA CA31/03

Citation

openlaw-51daf27f_3f6d_41b0_bdc9_a3255b477d9c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that Thorp J's 1994 dismissal of the 1992 proceeding was a dismissal for want of prosecution and not a consented or merits decision; dismissal for want of prosecution does not give rise to res judicata unless exceptional circumstances exist, none existed here, so the 1996 proceeding was not barred and the appeal against Williams J's dismissal of the strike out application fails.

New Zealand Case Law

BDM GRANGE LTD v TRIMEX (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1259

BK SIA-FOX V JUBILEE MANAGEMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC PMN CIV-2010-454-771

PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-0856

F A BORRELL V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-000676

DAVID RICHARD INNES GAY And Ors V DAVID DAWSON BRUNS CA CA31/03