New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation issues

Legal area

Court

30 May 2023

SNEESBY v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1316 [30 May 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1316
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal and the joinder application were dismissed because joinder is governed by r 4.56, the applicant failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of that rule, no arguable error of law or fact was identified that would justify leave under s 56, and the interests of justice did not warrant further delay; costs were ordered against the applicant.
19 Jul 2021

VIJAYAKUMAR v VASANTHAN [2021] NZHC 1827

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1827
Court

High Court

Leave under s165 was declined because, although the plaintiff has arguable claims and the company will not pursue them while controlled by the respondent, the shareholder remedy under s174 is a better, more comprehensive and cost‑efficient route to achieve separation, compensation and rectification; therefore a derivative proceeding is not the appropriate course.
7 Dec 2020

HEWITT v REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2020] NZHC 3206

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3206
Court

High Court

Given the applicant was the sole director and shareholder, the company had arguable non‑vexatious claims supported by a Law Society decision and independent legal opinion, there was an adequate explanation for delay and potential limitation urgency, and the company was solvent when removed, it was just and equitable to restore the company to the register and to dispense with service.
24 Feb 2020

REHU v MOKE [2020] NZHC 254

Citation

[2020] NZHC 254
Court

High Court

The advances totalling $350,000 made January–May 2008 were advanced before the parties were living together as a de facto couple for s2D purposes and therefore were loans repayable on demand and interest free; the parties did not meet the threshold of living together as a couple until mid‑2008 when chattels were moved and engagement followed; Omaru Road is Māori land and outside the Court's jurisdiction under s6 so any reciprocal enforcement in relation to Lyttelton Street is conditional on Māori Land Court resolution; the facts did not establish extraordinary circumstances to justify unequal…
17 Oct 2016

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v BLACK BAG LTD AND ANOR [2016] NZHC 2469

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2469
Court

High Court

The hearing was vacated and adjourned to 3 July 2017 because the disclosed conflict of interest and need for expert preparation justified adjournment, and prejudice to the Official Assignee would be cured by conditions including a bank bond up to $3,000,000 callable by the Official Assignee and a limitation undertaking by Mr Ferguson, together with specified timetabling directions; costs reserved for trial.
2 Mar 2016

M YOVICH & SONS LIMITED and D FULLER v W W PETERS, WAYNE PETERS LAWYERS AND THOMSON WILSON [2016] NZHC 330

Citation

[2016] NZHC 330
Court

High Court

Although further disclosure would have been preferable, the Court concluded plaintiffs had legitimate strategic reasons to withhold service to pursue settlement to save the farm, the alleged non‑disclosures did not materially mislead the Judge into making the extension orders nor cause sufficient prejudice to the third defendants, and therefore the rescission applications must be dismissed; the ex parte extension orders stand.
6 Oct 2015

GOLDMAN v KIWI VISION LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2441

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2441
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the plaintiffs' claim based on Mr Goldman’s personal one-share KVL option because the rights attaching to that share vested in the Official Assignee on bankruptcy and therefore the plaintiff lacked capacity to pursue that claim; however the Court refused to strike out the separate claims relating to VCI's unexercised option and the claims against the executors and widow because those claims raised arguable temporal connection and notice facts, were not plainly statute-barred, and could not be disposed of summarily; the Court ordered modest security for costs be paid ($20,…
29 Jun 2015

PAUL STEVEN YARROW v MICHAEL CHANEL FINNIGAN [2015] NZHC 1468

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1468
Court

High Court

Balancing exercise: having regard to the expanded amended claim, the parties' realistic estimate of a 5 week trial, likely scale assessment of about 50 days (Band B with some Band C), and reasonable disbursement estimates, the Court exercised its discretion to order security sufficient to protect the defendant without crippling the plaintiff and fixed the second tranche at $80,000 for legal costs and $80,000 for disbursements.
26 Mar 2015

VIGOR-BROWN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2015] NZHC 582

Citation

[2015] NZHC 582
Court

High Court

Late filing of the r 5.1(3) affidavit was excused but the plaintiffs could not rely on Rotorua as the registry nearest the first-named plaintiff (who lives in Tauranga); on the facts overall convenience and the r 1.2 objectives favoured transfer to Auckland (defendant's residence and head office, counsel and witnesses, availability of earlier trial dates and need for expedition given age of claim and limitation concerns), so the Court ordered transfer to Auckland and awarded costs to the defendant on a 2B basis.
24 Feb 2015

RANGITUKUNOA V KONING & ANOR CA212/2014 [2015] NZCA 24

Citation

[2015] NZCA 24
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time refused because the proposed appeal lacked merit: the record shows the applicant voluntarily, if reluctantly, agreed to the conditional consent order, understood its terms, and there was no evidence of judicial intimidation or mistake sufficient to set aside the consent order; interests of justice do not favour an extension.