New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder of third parties

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2022

BATES v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 336

Citation

[2022] NZHC 336
Court

High Court

Defendants (Auckland Council and O'Hagan) were entitled to recover 2B scale costs and specified disbursements; costs for joinder of third parties were recoverable from the plaintiff even where multiple third parties were joined in one pleading; second counsel certified for the trial and interlocutory hearing; expert fees and modest external e-discovery costs were recoverable as reasonably necessary; a 50% uplift under r14.6 was justified against the plaintiff for refusing reasonable Calderbank settlement offers (Council uplift from 22 Nov 2019; O'Hagan uplift from 10 Feb 2020); O'Hagan's trav…
19 Jun 2020

DRINK TANK LTD v MORROWS PTY LTD [2020] NZHC 1391

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1391
Court

High Court

An Australian court (New South Wales or Victoria) is the more appropriate forum because the core acts and omissions (the valuation process), the governing contracts and confidentiality obligations, the subject shares and majority of relevant witnesses and documents are situated in Australia and Australian statutory and professional standards (including the competent professional practice defence) are directly engaged; hearing in Australia better serves the TTPA purpose of efficiency and cost reduction, therefore the High Court granted a stay under s 22.
31 Jul 2017

WEAVER & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZCA 330

Citation

(2017) 24 PRNZ 379
Court

Court of Appeal

Costs follow the event subject to rule 14.7(d): where a plaintiff succeeds overall but has advanced issues that significantly increased the defendant's costs, the successful plaintiff's costs entitlement may be reduced accordingly; mid-procedure Calderbank offers that are reasonable and rejected without genuine engagement can justify an uplift in costs; a defendant may recover full costs from a plaintiff for a third party reasonably and necessarily joined unless the defendant persisted unreasonably in the third party claim after it became clearly doomed — if the defendant gave clear warning a…
22 Nov 2013

J MESSENGER and J M MESSENGER v STANAWAY REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3096

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3096
Court

High Court

Joinder was granted because the defendant demonstrated a plausible entitlement to contribution/indemnity connected to the original claim, there exist triable issues of fact and law (including reasonable evidential bases that third parties may have owed duties and breached them), and conflicting expert and factual assertions made dismissal at interlocutory stage inappropriate; interests of justice favoured including the third parties for resolution at trial.
19 Oct 2012

NAGS HEAD HORSE HOTEL LTD V FOREST TRUSTEE LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-001739

Citation

openlaw-b90bcfdd_fd59_4807_8d5b_d3dcf9f3db2d.pdf
Court

High Court

Joinder was dismissed because permitting it would cause undue delay to the timely resolution of the summary judgment application, the core legal issue (operation of s105) is between the existing parties and must be resolved first, and the proposed third party claim against LINZ is inadequately pleaded and unsuitable for summary disposition; if the existing parties' dispute is resolved in the applicant's favor joinder can be sought later.
9 Dec 2011

WALTER PEAK CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED V ANDERSON LLOYD HC DUN CIV-2009-412-000389

Citation

openlaw-381c0a7d_8d73_4e97_9d71_288f6c014a17.pdf
Court

High Court

Anderson Lloyd established the necessary elements for leave to join the three proposed third parties under r 4.4 and s 17(1)(c): the pleadings sufficiently allege damage suffered by WPCT, Anderson Lloyd's potential liability as a tortfeasor, and that Messrs Koblick, Miron and Eisner may be tortfeasors liable in respect of the same damage; WPCT's imputation and delay arguments did not justify refusing leave at interlocutory stage; therefore leave to issue third party notices was granted.
16 Nov 2007

RAFFLES EDUCATION CORPORATION LIMITED V MILLS HC AK CIV 2007-404-001096

Citation

openlaw-73724561_490b_4a62_a159_92cd611138fb.pdf
Court

High Court

Joinder of the Kamil Inn Trust trustees was refused because there was no formulated cause of action against them in the arbitration and they were not parties to the share purchase agreement; the Mareva injunction was discharged because, on the full evidential material taken afresh, the plaintiff failed to establish a real risk of dissipation despite concerns about delayed and incomplete disclosure and muddled financial dealings by the defendant.
16 Dec 2005

PAUL FLETCHER WHITEHOUSE AND MARIE LOUISE WATSON AND SUSAN JANE WATSON AND ANOR V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV2004-485-1415

Citation

openlaw-f02a6016_9f23_46af_8f2b_53bb3efc1463.pdf
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the application for further and better particulars because the particulars sought were within the second third party's own knowledge and the defendant did not possess them; the application for a further answer to interrogatories succeeded in part because although the defendant's affidavit gave the substantive grounds, it failed to state that due and diligent inquiries had been made and the deponent must swear a further affidavit addressing that duty.