New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Insider trading

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2022

LIVINGSTONE v CBL CORPORATION LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZHC 1734

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1734
Court

High Court

The Court found the r 10.12 thresholds were satisfied because the FMA proceedings and the shareholder proceedings share common factual and legal issues (IPO-related disclosure, solvency accounting and continuous disclosure obligations) and arise out of the same series of events; balancing efficiency gains, prejudice to parties and risk of inconsistent findings, the proper course was to order a joint trial of liability issues in the two FMA proceedings and the two shareholder proceedings, with evidence in each to be evidence in all, while reserving leave to sever particular issues (including p…
9 Apr 2019

R v TALBOT [2019] NZHC 773

Citation

[2019] NZHC 773
Court

High Court

Conviction entered under s19ZD of the Securities Markets Act 1988 and a fine of NZD 12,000 imposed. Conviction alone was insufficient because it did not adequately promote accountability and acknowledgement of harm; starting point set at NZD 15,000 for seriousness and aggravating features, reduced 10% for lack of prior convictions/good character and a further 10% for plea, rounded to NZD 12,000.
14 Mar 2018

SANSOM v R [2018] NZCA 49

Citation

[2018] NZCA 49
Court

Court of Appeal

Vodafone, treated as a notional s202 applicant, did not establish undue hardship beyond the ordinary consequences of publication and the appellant failed to show a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; therefore the statutory thresholds in ss200/202 were not met and suppression was not warranted, although the court stayed publication until the trial date to protect fair trial rights.
26 May 2015

COOPER-DAVIES TRUSTEES NUMBER 6 LTD v COOPER TRUSTEES NUMBER 11 LTD (CA22/2014) [2015] NZCA 197

Citation

[2015] NZCA 197
Court

Court of Appeal

Only a limited set of contingencies (uncertain sale value of bare land and red-zone related risks) were materially relevant at the operative date; a 15% discount, not 50%, was appropriate; valuation should reflect insurance payout and subsequent land sale less expenses and then apply the shareholding proportion, producing a substituted judgment of $574,625 plus interest; fiduciary relief was not granted because it was not properly pleaded or supported by evidence; cross-appeal dismissed.
30 Apr 2009

HAYLOCK AND ORS V J W PATEK AND ANOR HC AK CIV-1999-404-000899

Citation

openlaw-7d4ff303_1cf8_4518_b7aa_7d18ee901d43.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted a limited variation of the consent order: Southern must, in addition to the agreed capped fee, meet the whole of Mr Judd's accounts already rendered and half of Ms Mills' (and, if applicable, half of Mr Powrie's) accounts for 13 November 2007–29 February 2008, because those additional costs were causally attributable to the defendants' manner of settling the Wellington proceedings which hindered plaintiffs' access to material; otherwise the consent order remains in force because plaintiffs failed to show a broader change in circumstances and much of the trial overrun resulte…
19 May 2008

R P HAYLOCK AND ORS V J W PATEK AND ANOR HC AK CIV 1999-404-000899

Citation

openlaw-17c8d1f2_1522_4713_a61f_33fa6c44bcf9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the contested passages and Mr Swindon's expert evidence were admissible: the material comprised factual and industry observations rather than legal conclusions; retrospective opinions do not automatically render evidence inadmissible where they may give substantial help; valuation evidence by reference to Fletcher Challenge Energy share price is admissible notwithstanding complicating factors; weight and proof of relied facts under s25(3) remain matters for trial.
29 Feb 2008

HAYLOCK V PATEK HC AK CIV.1999-404-899

Citation

openlaw-b08be59f_646e_4f80_8a39_b1009edc75bf.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue was granted unconditionally to the fourth plaintiff; the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Wellington settlement agreement was sufficiently relevant and necessary to warrant discovery and the application for its disclosure was dismissed; discovery of the four witness statements was dismissed as superfluous because r 441J(e) prevents parties using statements served in other proceedings before they are given in evidence; a non-party discovery order against Abano Healthcare was granted; the pre-trial timetable was amended and trial commencement confirmed for 5 May 20…
29 Nov 2006

SECURITIES COMMISSION V MIDAVIA RAIL INVESTMENTS BVBA AND ORS CA CA252/05

Citation

openlaw-866474ed_0c12_4c03_b1f8_bbacfc18faf4.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

A gain made or loss avoided is not an element of the causes of action under ss 7 and 9; the statutory causes of action accrue when the relevant sale or purchase (or tipping conduct where applicable) takes place; the reasonable discoverability doctrine does not apply to defer accrual under Part 1 of the Securities Markets Act; accordingly the Commission's claims for pecuniary penalties against Midavia and Richwhite were time‑barred.
13 Jan 2006

SECURITIES COMMISSION V MIDAVIA RAIL INVESTMENTS BVBA AND ORS HC AK CIV. 2004-485-2174

Citation

openlaw-c771c120_1b53_49f7_8161_c1ad458aebfa.pdf
Court

High Court

For pecuniary penalty claims under the Securities Markets Act the cause of action accrues no later than the date of the impugned trades because ss 7 and 9 establish liability by the trades and s 15(2) fixes valuation 'at the time of the sale or purchase'; accordingly pecuniary penalty claims against Midavia/Richwhite, based on sales alleged 8 February 2002 and commenced in 2004, are statute‑barred and constitute an abuse of process such that they should be struck out (final form/order deferred to conference). Leave to appeal against the particulars judgment was refused and Berkshire/Ferenbach…
8 Sept 2005

PACIFIC HOLDINGS LTD V HUDSON NEW ZEALAND LTD & ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-531

Citation

openlaw-aabbe0bf_58bc_4899_94bd_d25fbea7785d.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendants' alleged defences of illegality and knowing receipt are hypothetical and lack the necessary evidential foundation to raise a real question to be tried; the plaintiff's verified contract documents establish a prima facie entitlement to repayment, therefore summary judgment is appropriate and entered for the plaintiff.