New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Prospectus interpretation

Legal area

Court

20 Jun 2017

ACTIVEDOCS LIMITED v CADRE INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MICHAEL WILLIAM SCOTT STANBRIDGE AND TREASURY MERCHANT FINANCE LIMITED [2017] NZSC 91

Citation

[2017] NZSC 91
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave because the dispute was a particular question of interpretation of the shareholder resolution and prospectus already resolved by the High Court and Court of Appeal (which held preferential dividends accrued until conversion), and the matter did not raise public or general importance nor a miscarriage of justice warranting leave.
19 Aug 2016

CADRE INVESTMENTS LTD & ORS v ACTIVEDOCS LTD [2016] NZHC 1942

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1942
Court

High Court

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a 2B basis for the disputed items: pre-trial conference time was allowed, preparation of affidavits (item 30) was allowed but on a 2B basis (2.5 days), list of issues/common bundle (item 31) was allowed, and preparation for hearing (item 33) was allowed on a 2B basis; a 30% reduction for partial success was refused because the substantive dispute turned on interpretation of the prospectus and the plaintiffs were substantially successful.