New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Funding agreements

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2022

100 INVESTMENTS LTD v WALKER [2022] NZHC 1379

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1379
Court

High Court

Although the threshold for consolidation under r 10.12(a)/(b) was met for the Auckland and Christchurch proceedings because of shared factual and legal questions (notably the remuneration review and distribution of settlement proceeds), the Court exercised its discretion against consolidation due to complexity, number of unrelated parties in the Christchurch file, risk of delay and inefficiency, disclosure/confidentiality complications and differing hearing formats; instead the Court stayed the Christchurch remuneration application pending final resolution of the Auckland proceeding and set a…
30 Mar 2021

ROSS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 684

Citation

[2021] NZHC 684
Court

High Court

CFA's application to intervene was dismissed because the court concluded CFA would not add a materially different perspective to that of the plaintiffs, CFA's interest was primarily commercial and was sufficiently protected by the funding agreement, and intervention would cause prejudice to the defendant in preparing for the scheduled hearings; by contrast leave was granted to the eight named Vickers policyholders because their participation raised legitimate interests to be heard, subject to strict timetable and limits on costs and appeal rights.
13 Nov 2015

ARCADIA HOMES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v ANDREWS & ORS [2015] NZHC 2825

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2825
Court

High Court

Defendants failed to establish the threshold that there is reason to believe plaintiffs will be unable to pay defendants' costs; the funding agreement and the apparent availability of funds under the trust/group structure (including proceeds of the Waimana sale) make inability unlikely; on the merits the plaintiffs' claims have sufficient substance to weigh against ordering security; accordingly the court declined to order security for costs and dismissed the applications.
30 Nov 2011

HOUGHTON V SAUNDERS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000348

Citation

openlaw-de9f3646_d833_4075_8ae9_64a952922479.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for non‑disclosure is granted because, on balance, the risk of unfair tactical advantage and prejudice to the representative claimants from disclosure of the investment agreement and ATE insurance outweighs the defendants' interest in seeing those documents; the defendants' legitimate interests are adequately protected by production of the documents to the Court together with specified financial evidence, and by the existing JAFL agreement and prior procedural safeguards, including provisional merits assessment and security for costs orders.
19 May 2010

HOUGHTON AND ANOR V SAUNDERS AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000348

Citation

openlaw-5c5fa354_666e_4d06_a9cd_778cb7865ac1.pdf
Court

High Court

The stay is lifted for the limited purpose of permitting the plaintiff to file the amended statement of claim and to send an approved opt-in notice, but allegations pleading accessory liability for channel stuffing must be removed for lack of evidential foundation except insofar as adequately supported against Sam Magill; the opt-in notice is approved with modifications including restricting funder communications (Gavigan allowed as contact subject to solicitor approval), removal of extraneous website material, and no requirement to warn of personal party-and-party costs given existing law; s…

New Zealand Case Law

100 INVESTMENTS LTD v WALKER [2022] NZHC 1379

ROSS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 684

ARCADIA HOMES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v ANDREWS & ORS [2015] NZHC 2825

HOUGHTON V SAUNDERS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000348

HOUGHTON AND ANOR V SAUNDERS AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000348