New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quantum of loss

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2022

CHANNEL INFRASTRUCTURE NZ LIMITED v HJ ASMUSS & CO LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2905 [8 November 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2905
Court

High Court

Court dismissed the r 10.15 application. The Valve Failure Questions were insufficiently demarcated from other liability and quantum issues, the evidential overlap and factual/legal complexity meant a separate hearing was unlikely to save time or costs (realistic hearing estimate ~10 days rather than 3), and there was material risk of appeals, estoppel, witness recall and other practical inefficiencies; the discretion to order separate questions was therefore not exercised in Channel's favour.
10 Jun 2021

DAISLEY v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1376

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1376
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of defence in respect of most challenged amendments because allowing factual and defensive amendments (including pleading Crown ownership of minerals, contesting plaintiff's due diligence, and causation/quantum issues) was necessary for the real controversy to go to trial, the plaintiff would not suffer significant prejudice given the rescheduled trial and time to file replies and supplementary evidence, and delay could be managed by a firm timetable; leave was refused for proposed pleading content that amounted to submissions rather than factual…
15 May 2020

GRACE v ORION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1007

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1007
Court

High Court

Leave to file the fifth amended statement of claim was granted because the amendments were essentially within the substance of earlier pleadings, any timing non‑compliance was excused given lockdown circumstances, the defendants could provide supplementary evidence to address changes so no significant prejudice or undue delay would result, and permitting the amendment best served the interests of justice by allowing the real controversy to be tried.
17 Apr 2018

PAUL GEOFFREY MYALL v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2018] NZSC 35

Citation

[2018] NZSC 35
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the disputed issues were fact‑specific and dependent on the evidence led; despite some reasoning errors below, the conclusions on professional fees and area adjustment were open to the courts and did not raise questions of public or general importance nor demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
20 Jul 2017

RICHINA PACIFIC LTD v AAI LTD (FORMERLY VERO INSURANCE LTD) & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1686 [20 July 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1686
Court

High Court

The court held the bond was conditional; the Engineer's 25 September 2012 certificate operated as a valid partial certificate as treated and ratified by the contracting parties, carving the car stacker out of practical completion rather than discharging the bond; there was no prejudicial conduct by Samson or the Engineer discharging AAI; Samson proved reasonable costs arising from Mainzeal's default up to the $2,000,000 bond cap; AAI (formerly Vero) breached the bond and is liable to pay $2,000,000; Richina has standing under s 3 of the Declaratory Judgments Act to seek relief in these circum…
18 Apr 2016

CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED v CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON & ANOR [2016] NZHC 710

Citation

[2016] NZHC 710
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because, on the limited material before the Court, it could not be concluded that the expert quantification and the remaining judicial issues were entirely discrete; the risk of inconsistent outcomes and significant prejudice to the plaintiff outweighed the limited prejudice to defendants, and the 16 May 2016 fixture was vacated.
3 Nov 2015

HEARTLAND BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY MARAC FINANCE LIMITED) v VERO LIABILITY INSURANCE LIMITED [2015] NZSC 168

Citation

[2015] NZSC 168
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the disputed issue (whether intention required subjective desire) was not a point of law of general or public importance but a factual disagreement about application of the policy to the facts; the Court of Appeal did not require subjective desire to establish intent and there was no risk of miscarriage of justice.
7 Jul 2015

VERO LIABILITY INSURANCE LIMITED v HEARTLAND BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY MARAC FINANCE LIMITED) CA712/2013 [2015] NZCA 288

Citation

[2015] NZCA 288
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal because although Atkinson committed dishonest acts from about 2005 onward (concealment and mismanagement), the Judge erred in finding he had the clear intent to cause MARAC loss; rather his intent was to conceal mismanagement to avoid dismissal. Further, MARAC did not prove direct financial loss within the four year discovery period because repayments during that period exceeded advances, so no covered direct loss arose. Consequently the insurer was not liable under the policy and the High Court liability and quantum judgments were set aside.
24 Mar 2015

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND MOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION CA727/2013 AND CA593/2014 [2015] NZCA 78

Citation

(2015) 14 TCLR22
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that ss 41, 42 and 44 must be applied so that fees are justified by costs that are sufficiently close and relevant to the enumerated fee activity; the broad 'beneficial relationship' or full cost absorption approach is rejected; High Court findings that Sportzone/MTF charged unreasonable fees were upheld; where loss is proved s 94 relief (repayment) is available.