New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Formal proof

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2023

BOADEN v MAHONEY [2023] NZHC 2878

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2878
Court

High Court

The joint IT expert concluded it was most likely the defendant accessed his Gmail account via his phone and deleted all emails; there was no alternative explanation and the defendant had breached the unless order and preservation obligations. Consequently the defendant's statement of defence was struck out and the plaintiff was entitled to proceed to judgment by formal proof; costs orders were imposed including indemnity costs for steps after the relevant date.
19 Sept 2023

HUTCHISON v CARRIGAN [2023] NZHC 2610

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2610
Court

High Court

Costs lie where they fall because the plaintiffs acted within the High Court Rules, the preparatory work for the formal proof retained utility and was not truly wasted, and the likelihood of an application to extend time made the plaintiffs' preparation reasonably necessary; both parties share responsibility for failing to secure clarity on the timing of the defence.
5 Jul 2023

TANG v SUNBOW LIMITED (in liquidation and receivership) [2023] NZHC 1730

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1730
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Settlement Agreement was entered into under duress and undue influence because Ying Zhong had been threatened (including threats to her life by Sun) and was coerced into signing; accordingly SILHK failed to establish by formal proof that Sunbow owed $2,077,853.74 and the claim was dismissed.
13 Jun 2023

SCHUITEMA AND CONNOR v SCHUITEMA AND ORS[2023] NZHC 1473

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1473
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the court was satisfied the testator had testamentary capacity when she executed the 8 July 2019 will, was not subject to undue influence, the will was properly executed and probate should be granted in solemn form to the named executors.
29 Sept 2022

PROGRESSIVE LIVESTOCK LIMITED v DONALDSON [2022] NZHC 2491

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2491
Court

High Court

The defendants' persistent and material non-compliance with clear unless orders to discover specified documents, their failure to explain or demonstrate reasonable steps to recover missing documents, and the production of evidence inconsistent with their own earlier communications justified striking out their defences; the plaintiff is entitled to proceed by formal proof and any proceedings against the company will be stayed if and when liquidation is recorded under s 248 Companies Act 1993.
17 Mar 2022

TEMPEST LITIGATION FUNDERS LTD v ZHANG [2022] NZHC 496

Citation

[2022] NZHC 496
Court

High Court

Although the applicant succeeded in having the formal proof judgment set aside, she had sought the Court's indulgence because her own default (failure to file a defence) caused the formal proof; the plaintiff was entitled to pursue formal proof and the court will not decide disputed issues of standing or counsel conduct at the costs stage; therefore costs should lie where they fall and the applicant's costs application is refused.
9 Mar 2022

DAIRYWORKS LIMITED v GERALDINE CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 399

Citation

[2022] NZHC 399
Court

High Court

Service on the first and second defendants at their registered office (despite only an index of initial disclosure being served) was effective for the purposes of the formal proof application; the plaintiff was entitled to apply for formal proof and to an award of wasted costs for the aborted formal proof hearing, but quantum must be moderated to reflect the continuing utility of the materials prepared and exclude work relating solely to the unserved third defendant; accordingly wasted costs of $7,767.50 were awarded to the plaintiff.
24 Feb 2022

SMITH v SMITH [2022] NZHC 272

Citation

[2022] NZHC 272
Court

High Court

The proceedings were dismissed because service had not been properly effected in accordance with the High Court Rules and the claim amounted to an abuse of process by seeking to relitigate matters already finally determined; given the procedural deficiencies, lack of proper affidavit evidence and no prospect of formal proof success, an adjournment was refused and dismissal ordered.
17 Dec 2021

PUBLIC TRUST v DI SOMMA [2021] NZHC 3531

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3531
Court

High Court

On the evidence, notably the 2008 occupational therapy assessment indicating significant cognitive decline and the 2009 geriatrician certificate finding mental incapacity, the Court was satisfied to the requisite standard that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when making the 2008 wills; consequently probate was granted in solemn form for the earlier and uncontested 2 June 2000 will.
29 Jun 2021

SMITH v KING [2021] NZHC 1577

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1577
Court

High Court

Applying s24(2) of the Defamation Act 1992 and having reviewed the invoices and memoranda, the court accepted the invoices as properly incurred and related to this proceeding and ordered the defendants jointly and severally to pay solicitor-client costs and disbursements of $32,667.74.