New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Litigation funding disclosure

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2022

MATHIAS v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2022] NZHC 3105

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3105
Court

High Court

The court declined to vary the class to include intermediate owners because the reservation of leave did not permit substantial alteration of the agreed class and because including intermediate owners would create potential conflicts between claimants, unmanageable complexity and potential injustice to non-opt-in current owners. The court approved the Opt-in Notice with agreed modifications, ordered a targeted personal mail-out by NZ Post to identified former applicants (1,277) plus 1,376 applicants who did not pursue claims, paid for by the plaintiff, set the opt-in period at 4.5 months, req…
13 May 2022

CHONGQING JINZHIRAN JIABOCHENG BUILDING MATERIALS CO LTD v HUANG [2022] NZHC 1035

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1035
Court

High Court

Given the unusual features of these cases (funding entered into by plaintiffs' New York counsel DGW, funder not liable for adverse costs, funding covering multiple matters, limited assets of plaintiffs, and potential funder control), the terms of the funding arrangements are relevant to the quantum of security for costs and must be disclosed; disclosure ordered with scope and confidentiality to be addressed by the parties; no stay ordered at this stage but leave reserved to apply for stay on abuse of process grounds.
20 Sept 2021

ROSS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2452

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2452
Court

High Court

The Court approved a High Court issued opt-out class members notice in the form provided, requiring disclosure of the existence and nature of litigation funding and a clear summary of potential cost recovery mechanisms (CFO/FEO) sufficient for informed opt-out decisions; it fixed the opt-out deadline (5.00 pm 20 December 2021), permitted contemporaneous communication by Southern Response of its settlement Package subject to neutral content and timing directions, and directed delivery methods and initial allocation of posting/emailing costs to Southern Response (costs in the cause), while rese…
12 Apr 2019

CAIN & LOGAN v METTRICK [2019] NZHC 802

Citation

[2019] NZAR 668
Court

High Court

Where a nominee company is used to conceal the identity of the non-party funder the court and defendants are entitled to information beyond the nominee; the liquidators were ordered to disclose the persons beneficially entitled to shares in PLF Services Ltd and Arkansas Trustees Ltd, the persons beneficially entitled to the Services Fee, and those persons' locations and amenability to New Zealand jurisdiction so the court and defendants can assess potential abuse of process and jurisdictional matters.
2 Nov 2016

BLIGH v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2016] NZHC 2619

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2619
Court

High Court

Leave to withdraw was granted and the proceeding was dismissed pursuant to High Court Rules r 10.8 because the plaintiff failed to appear despite being informed and advised by counsel; no adjournment warranted given prejudice to defendants and court resources; plaintiff may apply to set aside the dismissal under r 10.9 if grounds of miscarriage of justice exist.
25 Jul 2014

PATEL v PATEL & ORS [2014] NZHC 1744

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1744
Court

High Court

On the interlocutory evidence the plaintiff has an arguable claim and there is a real risk of dissipation of assets; accordingly the court restrained the third to ninth defendants from making distributions of profits or extraordinary/unusual remuneration without leave of the Court (with payments to Mr Praful Patel up to $100,000 per annum not treated as extraordinary). The Court declined to compel disclosure or authorisation to UBS absent fuller argument and jurisdictional basis, directed comprehensive affidavits of documents from the plaintiff and provided a procedure for third-party discove…
25 Nov 2013

COOPER v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LTD [2013] NZHC 3116

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3116
Court

High Court

The Court lacked jurisdiction to vary its prior opt-in date order outside the permitted review period and therefore declined to extend the opt-in deadline or to order the defendant to email the notice; however the Court will review and amend the form of the proposed opt-in notice (deleting specified text and any link to an advocacy website) but will not endorse its content; costs awarded to the defendant for successfully opposing the orders.
10 Jun 2013

BENNETT & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1357

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1357
Court

High Court

The Court held the defendant's broad request for further discovery was disproportionate and oppressive given the age and pleaded materials; compulsion in the original acquisition may be relevant to s40(2) and relief, and plaintiffs' 1983 financial circumstances and knowledge may be relevant but only via focused interrogatories; full historic documentary discovery was refused but the plaintiffs must produce a redacted litigation funding agreement disclosing division of proceeds and cost arrangements and must answer a specified set of focused interrogatories within fixed time limits; costs on t…