New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

NEVIS GROUP LIMITED v JACKSON [2023] NZHC 186

Citation

[2023] NZHC 186
Court

High Court

The invoices, read in context, substantially complied with s20(2)(c) and (e) of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 because they identified monthly periods, itemised components with quantities, unit prices and totals and showed the manner of calculation; no payment schedule was issued, so Nevis was entitled to summary judgment on the unpaid invoices. Alternatively, even if the invoices were deficient, Ms Jackson could not rely on her counterclaim as a set-off because she part-paid earlier invoices to procure completion and withheld final payment opportunistically, so it would be unjust to den…
27 Sept 2023

ZHENG and HIBISCUS INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES 2008 LTD as trustees of the ZHENG FAMILY TRUST v LYNDON, LYNDON and ARCHER [2023] NZHC 2679

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2679
Court

High Court

A measured duty arose for the defendants from late October 2016 when they were on notice of alleged loss of production; the defendants breached that duty by dismissing and failing to investigate and mitigate root encroachment until August 2020; on the evidence root encroachment into the greenhouse was the likely major cause of reduced production and, after accounting for unreliable cash sales and apportioning one third for contributory negligence, the occupier Zheng Lu Holdings Ltd is entitled to NZD 45,278 damages plus prescribed interest; the defendants' counterclaim is dismissed.
24 Aug 2023

EASTERNMANOR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v YESHE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2317

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2317
Court

High Court

Summary judgment granted for Easternmanor Development Limited. The Acanthus–EDL contractual restrictions on on-sale and marketing did not render the EDL–Yeshe contracts invalid and did not provide Yeshe an arguable defence. Post-contract WeChat communications did not establish a Fair Trading Act defence because they were post-contract and there was no demonstrated reliance causing Yeshe's conduct. Yeshe's removal from the Companies Register prevented settlement; loss is assessed at the date of cancellation; GST should be excluded from damages because a completed settlement would have been zer…
14 Jun 2023

XU v PLANT ZERO 2006 LTD [2023] NZHC 1482

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1482
Court

High Court

Because Mr Xu succeeded on all issues he was entitled to costs; the appropriate award was Scale 2B costs of $17,686 plus a 50% uplift of $3,007 under r14.6 due to unaccepted offers that necessitated the hearing; disbursements of $753.70 were ordered.
9 Feb 2023

STANTON & JIMCOCK LIMITED v ROWLING [2023] NZHC 96

Citation

[2023] NZHC 96
Court

High Court

Defendants filed no defence and the undisputed terms of the settlement and varied deed revoked their licence and required vacation and rental payments; under r12.2 the Court was satisfied there was no real question to be tried and made orders for immediate possession, specific performance, payment of unpaid rent with interest and costs.
26 Jul 2022

GILMORE v GILMORE [2022] NZHC 1806

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1806
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the plaintiffs limited to their successful summary judgment application and allowed claims for substituted service disbursements; costs for commencing the proceeding (statement of claim) were reserved and the balance of the substantive claim remains to be determined.
13 Jul 2022

THE GAMA FOUNDATION v FLETCHER STEEL LIMITED [2022] NZCA 314

Citation

[2022] NZCA 314
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted special leave only on the discrete legal questions concerning the application and scope of the rule in Joyner v Weeks (including whether it precludes recovery of reasonable mitigation costs and who bears the onus), but refused leave on Gama's arguments regarding clause 5.1 and clause 14.1 as not reasonably arguable given established authority and the arbitrator's findings.
13 Jun 2022

JOHNS v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL (recall of judgment) [2022] NZHC 1378

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1378
Court

High Court

The Court granted the recall because it had overlooked the consolidation order and, as a result, omitted necessary express findings about the Council's cross-claim and mutual contribution between the Council and Mr Davey; this oversight constituted a narrow 'very special reason' under r 11.9 and Horowhenua to amend the formal judgment without relitigating substantive findings, as no party was prejudiced and the amendments only clarify previously made liability apportionments and contribution rights.
2 Jun 2022

HAWKINS v GANNON [2022] NZHC 1291

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1291
Court

High Court

The judge refused to recall the reserved judgment because the grounds advanced did not fall within exceptional categories for recall; summary judgment was inappropriate for the maintenance reserve fund and paving claims because evidence showed plaintiffs had denied defendants access to the fund and plaintiffs failed to establish there was no arguable defence; plaintiffs were entitled to contractual costs under the lease and quantified amounts were awarded.
29 Apr 2022

ROBINS v CARTWRIGHT [2022] NZHC 868

Citation

[2022] NZHC 868
Court

High Court

Defendant's asserted misrepresentation and breach claims lacked any evidential foundation supporting quantum of loss; absent such evidence there was no arguable defence or set-off to the undisputed arrears. Summary judgment was therefore granted for the unpaid instalments and interest, while the plaintiff's claim for future instalments (damages) was unsuitable for summary judgment because the Agreement had not been cancelled.