New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonable discoverability

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2020

ROSENBERG v AMP SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED [2020] NZHC 631

Citation

[2020] NZHC 631
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the claim is indisputably time-barred: the cause of action accrued on the insured's death in 2006 under Limitation Act 1950 s4(1)(a); the applicant lacked standing to sue as a beneficiary absent an executor/administrator or effective assignment; equitable fraud and reasonable discoverability did not postpone limitation; and strike-out was properly entered, so leave would not provide any realistic benefit.
19 Dec 2019

SMYTH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 3435

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3435
Court

High Court

Limitation Acts do not directly bar Baigent claims but courts will be guided by limitation concepts by analogy; the unlawfulness of detention here was not reasonably discoverable before the Supreme Court's decision in Booth v R (2016), the plaintiff filed promptly after that correction of the law, the delay did not prejudice the defence, and therefore the Court in the exercise of its discretion awarded Baigent damages of $15,030 and declined interest.
18 Dec 2019

ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v AUSTIN [2019] NZCA 660 [18 December 2019]

Citation

(2019) 25 PRNZ 95
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that Mr Austin's DISH resulting from Roaccutane qualified as a treatment injury for which he had ACC cover; therefore s 317 barred his claim for compensatory damages and the compensatory damages claim was struck out. The Court declined to overrule Searle for pre-2011 cases, interpreted 'ordinary consequence' to exclude unexpected, significantly adverse outcomes disproportionate to treatment benefit, and held that prescribing/administering pharmaceuticals by a registered health professional constitutes 'treatment' for ACC purposes. Leave was reserved to plead a limited claim bas…
12 Dec 2019

DRIVER v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3275

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3275
Court

High Court

All monetary defamation claims were statute-barred because plaintiff had constructive knowledge by 14 February 2015 (and, objectively, publications were reasonably discoverable before 25 May 2015 and 20 July 2015); continuing online publications after 25 May 2015 caused less-than-minor additional reputational harm; claims for declaratory relief under the Defamation Act are subject to limitation by analogy; privacy claims based on passport/address and family reactions are untenable and struck out, but privacy claims based on publication of the fact of arrest and video footage of the hotel-room…
29 Oct 2018

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER 368533 v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2789

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2789
Court

High Court

The application for separate determination of the two questions under r 10.15 is declined. The court found both questions would require substantially the same factual and expert evidence as the substantive trial, present real demarcation difficulties, risk duplication and waste of resources, would not materially shorten or end the litigation, and could cause additional procedural prejudice; therefore all matters are to be litigated at the single substantive hearing.
26 Jun 2017

SONSRAM TRUSTEE LIMITED V HARRISON GRIERSON CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2017] NZCA 264

Citation

[2017] NZCA 264
Court

Court of Appeal

The CPC was valid and the consultancy services were completed by May/June 2008; the appellants' causes of action accrued by 2008 and are therefore barred by the Limitation Act 1950; the further evidence was neither fresh nor cogent and the proposed expert evidence was inadmissible; summary judgment for the defendant was properly entered and must be upheld.
6 Apr 2016

SONSRAM TRUSTEE LIMITED v HARRISON FRIERSON CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 581

Citation

[2016] NZHC 581
Court

High Court

All causes of action accrued no later than early July 2008 when the defendant's consultancy services were completed (final progress schedule/practical completion and council certification); reasonable discoverability did not defer accrual; the alleged signature defect did not prevent the practical completion certificate operating in the engineer's name; the claims were therefore statute-barred when proceedings were issued and summary judgment was appropriate for the defendant.
25 Feb 2016

M J DAISLEY v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL and W W PETERS [2016] NZHC 268

Citation

[2016] NZHC 268
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because on the pleaded facts accrual timing was not sufficiently clear to conclude the claim was plainly time-barred; reasonable discoverability and potential concealment by the Council of the consent may affect accrual and s 28 may apply, and those matters require pleading and discovery before limitation can be finally determined.
2 Jun 2015

WANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL v MWH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1198

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1198
Court

High Court

The strike-out application was dismissed because, applying the high threshold for summary disposal, it was not plain the Council's claim based on the concept design was statute-barred: while many pleaded breaches occurred before 30 August 2007, there was insufficient evidence to conclude as a matter of law that no continuing duty or later accrual (including under a Hamlin/latent-defect approach) could apply; the limitation issue involved contested facts and unsettled points of law better resolved at trial, and the Court declined to exercise its discretion to strike out given overlapping issue…
28 May 2014

BODY CORPORATE 325261 & ORS v J MCDONOUGH & ORS [2014] NZHC 1152

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1152
Court

High Court

The application to recall the judgment dismissing the strike out applications is refused because the matters alleged as errors either do not justify recall or raise factual issues (identification of the relevant act/omission, causation, effect of plan revisions) that cannot be resolved on a strike out/recall application and require trial; Westland does not compel recall and continued submission/resubmission of drawings may constitute fresh acts within the Building Act longstop.