New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2020

NORTHLAKE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WANAKA MEDICAL CENTRE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 154

Citation

[2020] NZHC 154
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were refused because the plaintiff's conduct did not amount to exceptionally bad or flagrant misconduct; however increased costs at 50% above scale were awarded because the plaintiff pursued a full range of arguments that lacked merit and continued to do so despite the absence of key evidence (Meehan) and the evident weaknesses, making increased costs appropriate under r14.6(3)(b)(ii).
13 Aug 2015

TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED v DOMENICO TRUSTEE LIMITED CA303/2015 [2015] NZCA 372 [13 August 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZCA 372
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because Tower had not made an unequivocal election to settle by immediate cash payment on the pleaded basis and the High Court erred in making a finding that an election had been made by reason of delay where that cause of action was not pleaded and the insurer was prejudiced; the matter must be reheard in the High Court.
16 Apr 2014

THAI DELIGHT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v PHONNAM [2014] NZHC 823

Citation

[2014] NZHC 823
Court

High Court

Where a statement of defence contains ambiguous or evasive denials as to alleged amounts or specific financial details, the defendant must provide particulars to state exactly what is admitted or denied (including amounts) under r 5.48(2); broader requests resembling interrogatories are not ordered.
6 Jun 2008

KROMA COLOUR PRINTS LIMITED V TRIDONICATCO NZ LIMITED CA CA598/07

Citation

openlaw-0d5fd916_cb81_405b_be0c_f6b35e8abbb2.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that a judge must weigh the overall reasonableness of the parties' litigation stances and not confine the inquiry to proof of an improper motive; where a defendant's conduct in defending proceedings serves interests of third parties and there is evidence both parties prolonged litigation for partisan purposes, the r 476C presumption can be displaced and costs need not be awarded to the defendant on discontinuance.
22 May 2007

NR COLLINS V DALGANA PTY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV2006-404-3523

Citation

openlaw-f26064a4_6ac5_4fb1_8925_111b93e55ed5.pdf
Court

High Court

Rule 725ZK is subject to normal pleading rules; where the plaintiff has given the best particulars available and the relevant facts are likely within the defendant's knowledge, an order for further particulars before discovery is unnecessary; on those grounds the application for further and better particulars was declined.
28 Nov 2006

RITCHIE V DEW DROP PAPAMOA LTD & ANOR AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001563

Citation

openlaw-f7dfaccd_edfd_45c7_9043_cd0d6c7d57d1.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the intending plaintiff could formulate the claim without the documents sought: the claim against Mr Old was sufficiently particularised and any additional documents would be obtainable through normal discovery after proceedings commence, so the r301 threshold of impossibility or impracticability and the necessity requirement of r301(4) were not met.
4 Aug 2006

KGAA V HOLDFAST NZ LIMITED SC 43/2006

Citation

KGAA V HOLDFAST NZ LIMITED SC 43/2006
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted limited to two issues: whether Henkel pleaded and proved artistic copyright by collocation or arrangement in the Cipadue drawings, and whether Holdfast infringed any copyright Henkel established.

New Zealand Case Law

NORTHLAKE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WANAKA MEDICAL CENTRE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 154

TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED v DOMENICO TRUSTEE LIMITED CA303/2015 [2015] NZCA 372 [13 August 2015]

THAI DELIGHT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v PHONNAM [2014] NZHC 823

KROMA COLOUR PRINTS LIMITED V TRIDONICATCO NZ LIMITED CA CA598/07

NR COLLINS V DALGANA PTY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV2006-404-3523

RITCHIE V DEW DROP PAPAMOA LTD & ANOR AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001563

KGAA V HOLDFAST NZ LIMITED SC 43/2006