New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Misleading or deceptive conduct (s 9 fta)

  • 29 Aug 2022

    REMEDIATION (NZ) LIMITED v ENVIRO (NZ) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2155

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 2155
    Court
    High Court

    Internal, single-party communications of Enviro were not discoverable because they were not sufficiently relevant to the pleaded causes of action: they would mainly evidence subjective belief or intention and therefore do not assist the objective tests applied to s 9 FTA or contract interpretation nor satisfy the Firm PI 1 objective background test for establishing fiduciary status. Communications between Enviro and third parties (notably Tauranga City Council and the health and safety auditor) were, however, sufficiently relevant to the pleaded causes (breach of fiduciary duty, misleading or…

    • Tailored discovery
    • Standard discovery
    • Relevance and proportionality in discovery
    • Misleading or deceptive conduct (s 9 fta)
    • Breach of fiduciary duty
    • Contract interpretation

  • 17 May 2022

    CORPORATE CABS LTD v KUMAR [2022] NZHC 1088

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 1088
    Court
    High Court

    On the available evidence the defendant breached the post-termination intellectual property covenant (cl 6.9) by using 'Business Cab(s)' branding and a vehicle presentation confusingly similar to Corporate Cabs; the plaintiff failed to prove a s 9 FTA breach because there was insufficient evidence of a likelihood of deception; because damages were inadequate and the injunction was proportionate to protect contractual rights and goodwill, a permanent injunction restraining use of the infringing brands/elements was warranted.

    • Breach of contract
    • Misleading or deceptive conduct (s 9 fta)
    • Injunctions (s 41 fta and equitable jurisdiction)
    • Passing off
    • Goodwill and trade dress

  • 16 Oct 2017

    D C RODEE TRADING AS MATAHUI AVOCADO RESORT SPA v FRESHMAX NZ LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2522

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 2522
    Court
    High Court

    The statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action because alleged oral variations to a written contract were vague, speculative and unsupported by acceptable evidence; Freshmax provided adequate documentary and evidential support showing it performed its contractual obligations and paid the plaintiff the amounts due, and the plaintiff conceded GST liability which undermined his case; accordingly the claim was struck out and, alternatively, summary judgment would have been entered for Freshmax.

    • Breach of contract
    • Misleading or deceptive conduct (s 9 fta)
    • Negligent misstatement
    • Strike out
    • Summary judgment
    • Gst liability

  • 5 Nov 2014

    GREEN CABS LIMITED v PARSHU RAM NAIDU [2014] NZHC 2749

    Citation
    [2014] NZHC 2749
    Court
    High Court

    The Court found a serious question to be tried on contract, Fair Trading Act and passing off; the vehicle's green was the same or almost indistinguishable from Green Cabs' Pantone 368C such that color alone can cause confusion; damages would be inadequate for Green Cabs while adequate for the defendant; on balance of convenience and overall justice an interim injunction prohibiting the defendant from operating the specified vehicle as a commercial passenger vehicle until further order or until repainted to a colour acceptable to Green Cabs was justified.

    • Interim injunction
    • Post-termination contractual obligations
    • Misleading or deceptive conduct (s 9 fta)
    • Passing off
    • Diversion of trade
    • Goodwill and brand dilution