New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-judgment interest

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2023

NEWELL v SAM PEMBERTON CIVIL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2676

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2676
Court

High Court

The Partnership was contractually obliged (expressly and by implication) to place fill meeting the Addendum Specifications and to exercise reasonable skill and care; the Partnership conceded it placed non-compliant fill and the factual and expert evidence established breach; SPC is entitled to recover remediation costs, liquidated damages that were reasonably foreseeable and reasonable legal fees, and there was no failure by SPC to mitigate its loss.
25 May 2022

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED [2022] NZCA 208

Citation

[2022] NZCA 208
Court

Court of Appeal

The RSMA imposed a predominantly administrative and co-ordination role on Hawkins with only a narrow quality-assessment function: Hawkins breached its monitoring/certification obligations where it certified completion of work that contained defects both visible to the naked eye and of sufficient seriousness as to compromise the integrity of the building or require substantial remediation; applying that test the Court found the cladding, windows, first-floor balcony structural defects and the previously identified foundations/sub-floor defects were impediments to certification and therefore wi…
30 Mar 2021

NOUVELLE VIE TRUSTEE LTD v CLAYTON [2021] NZHC 687

Citation

[2021] NZHC 687
Court

High Court

Defendants were validly served, filed no defence and presented no arguable defence to the debt claim; accordingly summary judgment was proper and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the principal, accrued interest and contractual costs.
12 Jul 2019

MAINZEAL PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQ) v YAN AND OTHERS [2019] NZHC 1637

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1637
Court

High Court

Both applications (plaintiffs' claim for interest and defendants' claim for reduction for asset recoveries) raised legitimate points but economically offset one another; starting net deficiency was ~$87m not ~$110m and plaintiffs' failure to seek interest in closing did not preclude court treating time value as a factor within s301 discretion; net result: no alteration to the $36m compensation order. Costs awarded to plaintiffs on scale with specific adjustments and a proportional award to fifth defendant; fixed contribution from Isola ordered.
26 Feb 2019

SHARMA v MUNDATH (No.2) [2019] NZHC 266

Citation

[2019] NZHC 266
Court

High Court

The court will accept and adopt plaintiffs' transaction schedules at the summary judgment standard and a sealed judgment need not itemise interest calculations for each transaction; the Interest on Money Claims Act requires that interest be awarded and specified as to the initial amount and that further interest runs on the amounts of equitable compensation from the judgment date, but the Act does not permit interest to run on interest already accrued (no compounding).
31 Aug 2017

HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2017] NZSC 129

Citation

[2017] NZSC 129
Court

Supreme Court

Court ordered interest at the prescribed Judicature Act rate of 5% per annum on $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators' appointment (17 December 2012) because interest is compensatory for loss of use of company funds, jurisdiction exists under s87(1) and by parity under s295(c)/s348(2)(b), and no principled or case-specific reason existed to deny or defer interest.
9 Mar 2017

SPENCER v MINISTRY OF HEALTH [2017] NZHC 391

Citation

[2017] NZHC 391
Court

High Court

The Court recalled and reissued the judgment because the judgment intended to compensate the plaintiff for opportunity cost by awarding pre-judgment interest to the date of judgment, but the attached schedule limited interest to 30 September 2013; the schedule was amended to reflect interest to the date of judgment; certification for second counsel was declined and costs of the recall application were ordered to lie where they fall.
11 Jul 2013

MARCHAND & ORS v JACKSON & ANOR [2013] NZHC 1752

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1752
Court

High Court

Defendant breached contractual duty by failing to obtain the NZI Echelon Home policy; on the balance of probabilities that policy would have been obtained but capped to the insurance valuation, which was fixed at $2,525,756 in July 2009 and $2,626,786 in September 2010; excluded items (marble chips, shingle) are not covered, the pump house is covered, and the defendant is liable for the agreed total of $2,686,779 (including a provisional $15,000 sustainability upgrade payable on production of receipts); no pre-judgment interest awarded, interest on the principal runs from date of judgment and…
6 Apr 2011

AXIAM ENGINEERING LIMITED v JB SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2009-483-349

Citation

openlaw-d762dfd2_8a12_4b5c_a2af_98f9f013884a.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the defendant was in voluntary liquidation, the liquidators consented to the plaintiff proceeding, and the plaintiff substantiated the claimed amounts by affidavit and supporting documents, the Court will enter judgment on the papers for the amounts claimed; costs are awarded but reduced to exclude time and disbursements attributable to the unsuccessful summary judgment application, and interest will run at the Judicature Act rate from the date of judgment (no pre-judgment interest ordered).
11 Jun 2010

OCEANIA FURNITURE LIMITED V DEBONAIRE PRODUCTS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2008-485-1701

Citation

openlaw-66e31e3b_2e7e_4c31_9b5d_1e53ea4f44c6.pdf
Court

High Court

The court accepted Debonaire's factual lost profit quantification methodology as reliable after cross-checking and absent adversarial challenge, but held damages must be GST-exclusive (no GST evidence) and awarded interest under s 87 from the anticipated receipt date; contractual legal costs were payable to Oceania up to the point of summary judgment but reduced to account for the 2B costs already awarded by the Associate Judge; requests to recall or slip-correct the judgment adding GST on subset claims failed for lack of evidential basis and narrow recall criteria.