New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mitigation of damages

Legal area

Court

15 Jun 2023

THE GAMA FOUNDATION v FLETCHER STEEL LTD [2023] NZCA 243

Citation

[2023] NZCA 243
Court

Court of Appeal

The arbitrator correctly applied Joyner v Weeks as the prima facie rule for assessment of dilapidation damages and properly required the claimant to prove that its claimed repair costs represented the reasonable and proper cost of the repairs the tenant was liable to perform; ordinary mitigation principles did not alter that prima facie measure in the circumstances; the High Court therefore properly refused leave under Sch 2 cl 5(2) and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
15 Jul 2021

MIDLAND PROPERTIES (NZ) LIMITED v [A] [2021] NZHC 1791

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1791
Court

High Court

Leave to bring a summary judgment application is granted because the delay was satisfactorily explained, the merits are sufficiently arguable for summary resolution and there is no substantial risk of miscarriage; contested factual issues (mitigation, execution of amended lease terms) can be properly addressed at a summary judgment hearing with documentary and oral testing.
7 Jul 2021

MASTERTON INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WATSON [2021] NZHC 1681

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1681
Court

High Court

Summary judgment dismissed because the defendant has at least arguable defences — a potentially enforceable lease-to-buy arrangement (or components saved by short-term lease/part performance) and a genuine mitigation-of-loss dispute — such that factual and legal issues require a full trial.
11 Jun 2020

SYED v MALIK [2020] NZHC 1303

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1303
Court

High Court

The application for particular discovery was dismissed because the documents sought were not relevant to any lawful s 30 inquiry given the prior judgment on liability (which precluded defendants from relying on truth), ordering discovery would be oppressive and disproportionate and would amount to an abuse of process; accordingly r 8.19 relief was not appropriate.
23 Nov 2018

SELLMAN v SLATER [2018] NZHC 3057

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3057
Court

High Court

At interlocutory stage the hacked documents were not excluded because the plaintiffs produced sufficient indicia of authenticity and relevance and admissibility issues can be addressed at trial; plaintiffs satisfied the low threshold for particular discovery against Slater, Graham and FCL under r 8.19 for emails, comments metadata, OIA materials and invoices limited to relevance to the pleaded publications and services, while discovery against Rich and NZFGC is limited to terms/scope of services, ongoing disclosure and enquiries made; plaintiffs' broader discovery into reputation and publicat…
24 Aug 2017

CORRICK v SILICH [2017] NZHC 2033

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2033
Court

High Court

The Court refused indemnity costs but awarded costs to the first to fifth defendants on the 2B band increased by 50% because the plaintiffs' pleadings and conduct caused unnecessary steps and meritless arguments warranting uplift under r 14.6(3); however the conduct did not meet the threshold for indemnity under r 14.6(4). Items 20 and 21 (discovery and inspection) are to be assessed on 2A and defendants may recover preparation costs for the vacated trial under item 33; plaintiffs' set-off arguments and GST position were not accepted or proven.
26 Apr 2017

AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v SPAZIO CASA PROPERTY LIMITED [2017] NZHC 855

Citation

[2017] NZHC 855
Court

High Court

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove the asserted outstanding debts and post‑cancellation losses with adequate contemporaneous documentary and accounting evidence, leaving real and arguable defences (including estoppel by deed, disputed rent review effect, GST treatment and mitigation/benefit issues) that require further evidence or trial.
16 Dec 2014

PASCOE PROPERTIES LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA 755/2012[2014] NZCA 616

Citation

[2014] NZCA 616
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Ministry, through its senior officer (Grindey) and a course of dealing, had represented that its property consultant (Benjamin) had authority to negotiate and thereby cloaked him with ostensible authority; however, no binding renewal contract was formed because the correspondence objectively contemplated further steps (preparation and execution of a formal variation/deed) before the Ministry would be bound. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed though leave was granted to admit fresh evidence.
11 Dec 2013

STEFFENSEN v BGW INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3310

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3310
Court

High Court

Documents for the period after May 2009 (and in particular after December 2008) are not relevant to the plaintiffs' losses arising from BGW's failure to sell the equity funds in December 2007; mitigation may extend to December 2008 but beyond that the plaintiffs assumed the market risk and further discovery is unnecessary, so the application for particular discovery is dismissed.
20 Dec 2012

BODY CORPORATE 366611 V WU COA CA402/2011

Citation

COA CA402/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal held that the Body Corporate and Theta were liable in private nuisance for unlawful denial of access that unreasonably interfered with the respondent's proprietary right to use and enjoy his unit; rule 3.10 in its original form permitted reasonable restrictions on access to common property and controls over occupiers but did not authorize excluding an owner from his own unit; Theta acted as the Body Corporate's agent; the High Court damages award was set aside and all questions of quantum were remitted to the High Court for reassessment in light of the correct legal analysis.