New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest on arrears

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2022

NICOL v ALI [Costs] [2022] NZHC 3438

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3438
Court

High Court

The court held that while the lease entitled the plaintiff to recover costs and disbursements incurred remedying the lessee's default, a proportion of the claimed costs were attributable solely to an unsuccessful rent review claim; therefore the claimed amount of $19,825.09 was reduced by 25% to $14,868.82, and the court ordered payment of solicitor-client costs $14,868.82, disbursements $1,081.51 and interest $4,906.46 pursuant to s 251 Property Law Act 2007.
20 Dec 2021

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2021] NZHC 3552

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3552
Court

High Court

Because liability had already been determined, the court confined itself to quantifying arrears and accepted the applicant's calculations and evidence, awarding judgment for $106,184.82 as at 12 October 2021, with contractual interest at 14% per annum and costs reserved; the court also permitted Ms Armitage to represent Hum for the limited purpose of quantum.
11 Nov 2020

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2020] NZHC 2969

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2969
Court

High Court

On interpretation of the Deed of Lease cl 47.1 fixed the annual rent at $120,000 plus GST from 1 December 2016 and 1 February 2017 was not a rent review date; Hum is in arrears of at least $150,000 and must pay $150,000 on account within one month or the lease is cancelled and possession must be given; if paid further affidavits will determine final quantum including interest at 14% and timetable for remaining payments.
14 Dec 2016

JONES v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 3044

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3044
Court

High Court

The 18 September 2013 letter was explanatory clarification of the operative 17 September 2008 decision and not a "decision" under s 6 of the Act; accordingly it was not reviewable, the proposed appeal raised no question of general principle, lacked merit on its substance (no entitlement to retain WINZ payments plus ACC arrears or to have ACC pay WINZ debts), and did not justify special leave which is refused.
14 Apr 2016

Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 95
Court

District Court

Section 252(4) obliges ACC to reimburse WINZ for benefits paid during periods for which the claimant was entitled to ACC weekly compensation; s252(6) does not create an exception where ACC previously failed to pay; prior Court of Appeal rulings settle the point and bar collateral relitigation; therefore the reimbursement and deductions made by ACC were lawful and the appeal fails.
10 Nov 2015

Robinson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 337
Court

District Court

The Corporation had all information necessary by April 1989 to calculate and make ERC payments in respect of pre-accident NZ Post earnings but did not have sufficient information in April 1989 to determine prospective NZ Army earnings; accordingly interest is payable from 1 July 1992 on ERC assessed on NZ Post earnings but not on prospective Army earnings.
24 Jun 2015

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 163
Court

District Court

The 18 September 2013 letter was an explanatory communication that clarified earlier operative decisions (principally the 2008 calculation decision) and therefore was not a 'decision' capable of review under the Act; any challenge to the quantum of the 2008 calculation should have been brought by review of that operative decision or against WINZ for s252 calculations; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
9 Sept 2014

Nicholl v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 207
Court

District Court

There is no statutory authority under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to pay interest on unpaid interest (compound interest); therefore the appellant's claim for interest on interest fails and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Aug 2014

Beveridge v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 189
Court

District Court

Applying ACC v Miller, the Court found this case corresponds to Miller scenario 4: the Corporation did not have 'all information necessary' when it suspended weekly compensation in September 2007 because contemporaneous specialist opinion (Mr Otto) supported non-injury causation and the applicant's supporting specialist reports (Dr Wigley) were not received until August 2009; financial information from WINZ was received on 28 July 2010 and arrears were paid within one month on 2 August 2010; therefore no interest is payable and the appeal is dismissed.
21 May 2012

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 174
Court

District Court

The District Court granted leave to appeal to the High Court because the legal ambit of s114(1) was unsettled and the respondent consented; the appropriate question for the High Court is whether s114(1) entitles the appellant to interest on his arrears and, if so, from what date.