New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal liability of directors

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2021

A LABOUR INSPECTOR v SOUTHERN TAXIS LTD [2021] NZCA 705

Citation

(2021)18 NZELR 623
Court

Court of Appeal

Liability under s 142W(1) for being 'knowingly concerned in' an employer's breach requires actual knowledge (or wilful blindness) of the essential primary facts that establish the employer's contravention; it does not require that the person appreciate the legal classification (eg that the workers are employees) — the inquiry is whether the person knew the primary facts that led to that legal conclusion.
11 Jul 2016

HARRISON & ANOR v KEOGH [2016] NZHC 1555

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1555
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed points did not raise questions of law or fact of sufficient public or private importance to outweigh cost and delay; the matters were largely fact-specific, previously considered by lower courts, involved modest sums and limited prospects of success, and would unduly burden appellate resources; the High Court's application of estoppel and remedy was appropriate on the facts, and personal liability of the director was justified by his personal assurances and conduct rather than piercing the corporate veil.
11 Feb 2014

WELLS v VERISURE INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 121

Citation

[2014] NZHC 121
Court

High Court

Plaintiff entitled to costs but reduced: sealing costs disallowed because no liquidation order was made; no uplift against the director because her conduct did not justify increased costs; duplication with earlier costs order meant some steps not recoverable; specific scale awards assessed and quantified.
27 Feb 2012

TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED V EDMONDS & ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-002256

Citation

openlaw-8cc09333_49f0_4d3a_8fc0_52feed6ac8fc.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that for the named defendants who had been validly served (Tried Hard Pty Ltd and Mr Hughes; Mr Wilson; RJ & KE Williamson Pty Ltd and Mr and Mrs Williamson) the sale agreements' conditions were satisfied, the purchasers repudiated by failing to settle, the vendor validly cancelled and mitigated; damages were computed by deducting deposits and net resale proceeds (or a reliable registered valuation less reasonable sale costs where resale not achieved) from the unpaid balance of the purchase price; contractual default interest at 14% applied from settlement date to resale/cance…
25 Jun 2010

PUNTER MANAGEMENT LIMITED V ADVOCATE ADVERTISING LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-002233

Citation

openlaw-f68937ad_5684_4508_aa98_6c3be8ed0993.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant Advocate is liable on the contract as a matter of law because the defendants failed to show an arguable defence of misrepresentation or lawful withholding of payments; however the precise quantum of the unpaid balance cannot be determined on summary judgment because the contract contains an express adjustment mechanism for the final purchase price tied to future earnings, and issues of personal liability of Ms Mitchell and Mr Richards raise factual disputes requiring trial.
25 Jul 2008

BODY CORPORATE NO. 189855 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-005561

Citation

openlaw-86843d69_7bc3_451d_9201_e9cec120bd77.pdf
Court

High Court

The Council owed a Hamlin duty of care to the owners and subsequent owners of the residential units (including investors) and was negligent in its inspection role (notably in relation to window/head/sill details, door sills, cladding to decks and wingwall junctions), contributing materially to Building Code breaches that require a full reclad; the architect Smythe was personally liable for defective design; Centre of Attraction Limited and its director O'Hagan assumed personal responsibility for remedial services and are liable for negligent supervision of remedial works (resulting in wasted…
25 May 2006

WILLIS TRUST COMPANY LTD AND ANOR V GREEN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-809

Citation

openlaw-a26d9b65_7ea6_4fd2_a530_caf347834b37.pdf
Court

High Court

The adjudicator had jurisdiction and his determination is upheld because Holmes' final payment claim was a progress payment under the Act, Holmes did not waive or estop its statutory rights, the engineer's 20 September certificate did not comply with s21 and therefore no valid payment schedule was provided and the statutory time for Willis (and the directors) to supply one had expired; the adjudicator's award and costs were sustainable except that the directors' liability for GST and interest on the $250,881 collateral obligation was not supported by contract and those parts of the determinat…

New Zealand Case Law

A LABOUR INSPECTOR v SOUTHERN TAXIS LTD [2021] NZCA 705

HARRISON & ANOR v KEOGH [2016] NZHC 1555

WELLS v VERISURE INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 121

TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED V EDMONDS & ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-002256

PUNTER MANAGEMENT LIMITED V ADVOCATE ADVERTISING LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-002233

BODY CORPORATE NO. 189855 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-005561

WILLIS TRUST COMPANY LTD AND ANOR V GREEN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-809