5 Dec 2023
The proceedings were of average complexity and therefore appropriately classified as Category 2; cooperative conduct and fewer procedural steps reduced the quantum but did not alter the classification, so costs on a Category 2B basis of $14,579 plus disbursements of $391.30 were awarded against the respondents jointly and severally.
28 Sept 2023
Summary judgment for the second defendant dismissed in relation to the DLA Piper letters because disputed matter of publication and pecuniary loss exists and the defendant has not disproved the plaintiff's ability to succeed; the defamation and FTA claims based on the PwC email are struck out as untenable because, given the closed recipients (PwC partners), context and limited publication, the communications lacked the capacity to cause more-than-minor reputational harm or to mislead those recipients; FTA claims in respect of the DLA Piper letters remain tenable and plaintiff must file detail…
30 Jun 2023
WHC's website representations that it could register health practitioners, issue practising certificates enabling lawful practice and provide immunity from New Zealand authorities were false and misleading in trade and breached ss 9, 11 and 13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986; the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 applies and cannot be displaced by asserted Māori jurisdiction or tikanga; second to fifth defendants were knowingly concerned in the representations and summary judgment with a permanent injunction was warranted; sixth defendant's knowing involvement was not establishe…
19 Aug 2022
The appointment of Mr Walton as expert was invalid because AMINZ did not validly appoint him as expert and there was no evidence of a proper AMINZ appointment, and in any event the appointment occurred after the carrying out of the Contract Works had ended so cl 13.2.2's temporal requirement was not met; accordingly IFL was restrained from proceeding with expert determination before Walton.
22 Mar 2022
On the balance of probabilities the defendant published defamatory statements via Instagram post and livestream accusing the plaintiff of rape, drugging and underage sexual activity; those statements were plainly defamatory and caused more than minor harm; defendant did not defend the claim; court declares defamation and awards indemnity costs under s 24 of the Defamation Act 1992 but declines to grant a permanent injunction as unnecessary.
6 Dec 2021
Ace was a lender and its customers were borrowers; the Delayed Delivery Provisions were obscured in fine print, inconsistently cross-referenced and not transparently presented or explained, breaching s9C(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) CCCFA. The Delayed Delivery Provisions produced a significant imbalance in rights and obligations, were not reasonably necessary to protect Ace's legitimate interests, and would cause consumer detriment, so they are unfair under s46L FTA. Declarations and an injunction were therefore appropriate.
7 Sept 2021
The Court held the hearsay statements of Mr Shu were admissible under the Evidence Act (reliability and unavailability), upheld primary findings that appellants supplied and exported G3/G9 and engaged in infringing conduct in New Zealand, rejected that execution of the False Licence Agreement constituted an infringement extraterritorially of NZ PVRs, and affirmed damages awarded by reference to the user principle but reduced the area and quantum to reflect proven acreage (substituting NZD 12,081,150 per appellant for the relevant PVR claims); overall appeal allowed in part and otherwise dismi…
3 Jun 2021
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal: it held Nottingham Forest strictly liable in private nuisance for allowing a state of affairs (mature trees planted and allowed to grow within falling distance of Unison's pre-existing line) that caused recurrent, foreseeable physical damage and unreasonable interference with Unison's proprietary interest in the line; however Rylands v Fletcher did not apply because commercial forestry is an ordinary use of rural land and not a 'non-natural' use; negligence was not established and injunctive relief was unnecessary after trees were rem…
31 May 2021
The August 2020 and December 2020 Facebook publications bore the pleaded defamatory meanings and identified the plaintiff; Mr King was a publisher of both posts; Ms Keenan, as the Facebook page owner, had actual knowledge (including replying to the December post) and failed to remove the material within a reasonable time and thereby adopted responsibility; declaration of liability entered against both defendants and solicitor-client costs awarded under s 24(2); permanent injunction refused because restraint of expression was not justified on these facts.
13 Aug 2020
The Court held the appeal must be dismissed: a co-owner can be ordered in equity to account for revenue derived from co-owned Māori land; the Māori Land Court had jurisdiction under s 18(1) to make such orders and s 220(2) vested rights and remedies in the trustees; the appellant failed to prove deductible expenses or efforts so no reductions were made; the trustees' remedies for post-vesting trespass could be assessed by mesne profits or account and the amounts ordered by the Māori Land Court stand; no costs were ordered.