New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Injurious falsehood

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2022

JOHNSON v JARDEN CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1817

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1817
Court

High Court

The Court held the proceeding was complex and should be classified as category 3C for costs (with the security for costs application treated as 3B); separate representation for the first to third defendants and the fourth to thirteenth defendants was appropriate resulting in separate costs awards; an uplift was warranted because of the volume and complexity of the material filed and the need for immediate assessment by defendants, and the uplift was fixed at 50%, resulting in a costs award of $61,442 plus a $200 filing fee to be paid by the plaintiff.
29 Mar 2021

AVON PARNELL LIMITED v CHEVIN [2021] NZHC 650

Citation

[2021] NZHC 650
Court

High Court

Chevin acted without authority, knowingly submitted false Companies Office documents and induced reliance by Basecorp and others; his conduct contravened s9 Fair Trading Act 1986 and caused foreseeable loss; plaintiffs entitled to declaratory relief, permanent injunctions, and damages of $256,432.32 plus interest and costs; secondary tort claims (deceit and injurious falsehood) also established but Fair Trading Act finding sufficient for relief.
22 May 2020

EVEREST SERVICED APARTMENTS LTD v BODY CORPORATE 511909 [2020] NZHC 1091

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1091
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because, on assumed truth of pleaded facts, the amended statement of claim was not so clearly untenable as to be incapable of success; deficiencies identified (such as specifying s9 Fair Trading Act, tightening particulars of agreement and avoiding vague 'among others' references) were remediable by amendment and did not justify striking out at this interlocutory stage.
1 May 2020

TECTRAX LTD v SEALEGS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2020] NZHC 879

Citation

[2020] NZHC 879
Court

High Court

The court awarded only scale costs because, at the time the defendants filed the counterclaim they had a favourable High Court judgment in Zhang upon which it was reasonable to rely; the defendants did not act unreasonably or take steps that caused Tectrax to incur costs after the Court of Appeal judgment, and therefore there was no basis for increased costs under r 14.6.
19 Dec 2019

PLUMPTON v TERRY [2019] NZHC 3450

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3450
Court

High Court

Court found that Terry and Colbert (with Maynard's participation) unlawfully disclosed confidential UCFX information, breached fiduciary duties and obligations of confidence, and made malicious false statements to induce transfer of staff and attract investors; Maynard was not a de facto director but was party to the conspiracy and breaches of confidence; those unlawful acts materially contributed to UCFX's loss and remediation costs and lost opportunities; damages of NZD 681,212 were awarded to UCFX representing net re-establishment costs and lost opportunities; several pleaded causes (inter…
31 Jul 2019

LEWIS v JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. (1996894) [2019] NZHC 1788

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1788
Court

High Court

The defendant did not breach the settlement agreement nor provide any incorrect, disparaging or malicious statements to third parties; JP Morgan took reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure accurate reference responses given systemic limitations, and contemporaneous evidence from Westpac shows its recruitment decisions were based on team‑fit and internal promotion preferences unrelated to any JP Morgan statements; accordingly all of plaintiff's claims fail and are dismissed.
19 Dec 2016

HOYLE v TRANSPREAD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2016] NZHC 3120

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3120
Court

High Court

The Court found the first plaintiff (David Hoyle) authored the pleaded AutoCAD drawings and derived .dxf files, those works are original and protected by copyright, the defendant copied them (inference supported by objective similarity, access and implausible independent design) and reproduced a substantial part in both .dxf files and manufactured machines; Transpread as exclusive licensee has standing; injunction granted (limited by s75 to exclude relief for spreaders after 22 December 2017); defendant's counterclaims dismissed.
20 Aug 2015

NSK LIMITED & ANOR v GENERAL EQUIPMENT CO LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1979

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1979
Court

High Court

The Court applied a proportionality and relevance analysis directed by the pleadings: plaintiffs' broad discovery application was largely dismissed as disproportionate or irrelevant to pleaded claims except that defendant must discover supplier invoices in its control relating to XRT and Barton for the relevant dates and produce any documents that meet standard discovery; the defendant's request for plaintiffs' documents was narrowed to targeted searches of a named employee's (Mr Uchida) emails for July 2008–July 2011 (including WBA exchanges); documents arising from the plaintiffs' inspectio…
26 Nov 2014

RAY WHITE (REAL ESTATE) LTD v OH [2014] NZHC 2970

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2970
Court

High Court

The Court granted the interim injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated an arguable cause of action in defamation and injurious falsehood, the balance of convenience favored injunctive relief given the insidious and hard-to-quantify nature of the harm, and freedom of expression did not protect the defendant's conduct.
8 Aug 2014

BDM GRANGE LIMITED v TRIMEX PTY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1865

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1865
Court

High Court

Although the defendant's statutory demand was not prosecuted improperly and there was a genuine dispute about the long-running commercial relationship, once evidence established a termination payment claim exceeding the debt the defendant properly withdrew the demand; the initiating party that then reverts to formal proceedings should bear some consequence, so costs are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B scale with disbursements, but claimed Mr Chapman fees are not allowed now.