New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading and amendment

Legal area

Court

28 Sept 2022

BEACH ARENA LTD v WAIKORO LTD [2022] NZCA 454

Citation

[2022] NZCA 454
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the misrepresentation/counterclaim was statute‑barred: Beach knew (or ought to have known) of the increased insurance premium and of the material defects soon after taking possession/the lease so the six‑year limitation had expired before the counterclaim was filed; s14 did not postpone the start of the limitation period on the facts; no application for s50 relief had been made before the High Court decided the limitation defence and therefore s50 could not rescue the ancillary claim; the strike‑out of the time‑barred parts of the defence and counterclaim was affirmed and the a…
15 Dec 2016

NZ NATURAL THERAPY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v LITTLE [2016] NZHC 3079

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3079
Court

High Court

Because the defendant disclosed expert evidence outside the pleaded defence necessitating an adjournment, the Court exercised its discretion to award plaintiffs scale costs of $6,467 for steps responding to the late evidence and further awarded wasted costs of one-quarter of scale 2B ($4,460), totaling $10,927; an unless order was declined.
22 Feb 2016

MACKENZIE V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZCA 24

Citation

[2016] NZCA 24
Court

Court of Appeal

Application for special leave was declined because the proposed appeal raised no arguable point of law: the claim was statute-barred (time ran from removal on 2 October 1987 or at the latest from 21 March 2005 when claimant was informed), CHFA's refusal did not amount to fraudulent concealment under s 28(b), Crown Law could not be sued in the manner proposed and any fresh causes of action would be time-barred under r 7.77(2).
19 Sept 2008

HAKEKE JACKIE MCGARVEY V HINA TEMO CA CA315/07

Citation

openlaw-199007e8_a1e9_4a08_a67a_07a304a2079c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the will was valid on its face, the attestation clauses were credible and supported by evidence of bilingual witnesses and the likely presence of an interpreter, the testator had capacity and motive to make the bequest and nothing in the evidence raised sufficient suspicion to rebut the presumption that he knew and approved the will.
20 Mar 2006

CORNERSTONE GROUP LIMITED AND ANOR V OPM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ORS CA CA11/05

Citation

openlaw-f190771d_9f14_4c28_abd1_1b90f73d4f08.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held declaratory relief was within its jurisdiction and appropriate to determine the validity of the cancellations; the Marketing Agreement fee claim failed on the facts (no ongoing obligation after 28 February 2002); recovery of commission was barred by s62 Real Estate Agents Act 1976 because the respondents acted as agents without licence and written authority; the declaration should be limited to the party to the sale agreements (Tamariki Limited); the cross-appeal was dismissed and costs were left where they fell.

New Zealand Case Law

BEACH ARENA LTD v WAIKORO LTD [2022] NZCA 454

NZ NATURAL THERAPY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v LITTLE [2016] NZHC 3079

MACKENZIE V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZCA 24

HAKEKE JACKIE MCGARVEY V HINA TEMO CA CA315/07

CORNERSTONE GROUP LIMITED AND ANOR V OPM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ORS CA CA11/05