New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reliance and causation

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2023

CLYMA & ORS v KAMINSKI [2023] NZHC 3026

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3026
Court

High Court

The court found the defendant made numerous representations in the information memorandum and at the founders' meeting, was acting in trade when soliciting investment, and that those representations (except as to the CAA reclassification) were objectively misleading or deceptive; first-round investors reasonably relied on those representations and the misrepresentations were an effective cause of their losses; damages are appropriate though quantum is to be determined; the court declined to order transfer of the defendant's shares.
18 Aug 2022

CHIP N REPAIR LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2047

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2047
Court

High Court

The transcript and audio of the 23 August 2021 call demonstrated that no misleading representation was made to the policyholder; the agent expressly advised the claimant could use Chip N Repair provided a quote was submitted, and explained benefits of preferred repairers. IAG therefore established a complete defence to the pleaded cause of action and summary judgment was appropriate as the sole pleaded misrepresentation could not succeed; the judgment is confined to the alleged representation to Mr Tuhoro and does not preclude separate claims by other customers.
29 Apr 2021

FULLARTON v AROWANA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 931 - COMMERCIAL PANEL [29 April 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZCCLR 28
Court

High Court

Summary judgment on liability and declarations refused because plaintiffs relied materially on inadmissible hearsay investigatory reports (TEC/Deloitte/administrators) and there were significant disputed factual issues (notably scale/timing of early withdrawals, proportion of revenue derived, regulators' knowledge, and industry practice) that required further admissible evidence and contested testing; however representative proceeding orders under r4.24 were granted (opt-in class as pleaded) with directions and leave to seek further directions reserved.
25 Mar 2019

ROBERTS v JULES CONSULTANCY LIMITED [2019] NZHC 555

Citation

(2019) 21 NZCPR 163
Court

High Court

The Court found the second defendant, acting in trade as the body corporate manager and as the alter ego of Jules Consultancy, made factual representations that the only weathertightness issues related to walkways and had been rectified; those representations were objectively misleading and deceptive given contemporaneous records and expert evidence showing systemic weathertightness defects; the plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations when completing purchase; both the director and the company are liable under ss 9 and 14 of the Fair Trading Act 1986; damages to be assessed at a…
8 Dec 2017

SULLIVAN v WELLSFORD PROPERTIES LTD [2017] NZHC 3047

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3047
Court

High Court

Clause 18(i) imposed a limited obligation: vendor must provide requested information relevant to purchaser's due diligence but it did not impose a freestanding general duty to search for and disclose all potentially relevant information. The purchasers did not make inquiries sufficiently specific to trigger disclosure of the two May 2014 emails. The emails did not amount to a 'notice' or 'demand' under the vendor warranty clause. The MWIS statement that there were 'no outstanding disputes with the tenants' was properly read as referring to previous tenants and was not false. There was no brea…
5 Apr 2016

LDC FINANCE LIMITED v MILLER & ORS [2016] NZHC 567

Citation

[2016] NZHC 567
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's case management decision to decline the defendants' proposed staged/split trial was correct and within discretion: the representative pleading complied with Credit Suisse principles, the plaintiffs (including the company plaintiff) accepted the risk of proving reliance, no manifest disadvantage to defendants was demonstrated, and staging is not mandatory but a discretionary tool the trial judge may refuse where inappropriate.
13 Oct 2015

HELILOGGING LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 2503

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2503
Court

High Court

Summary judgment for the defendant: plaintiffs' deceit and negligent misstatement claims fail because they cannot show material reliance or causation—the alterations to the Lewis letter either authorised and evident ("viability"->"safety") or not material ("Mk52"->"Mk2" given the Mk2/Mk52 of the 1960s were materially the same); the misfeasance claim either lacks necessary culpable mental element or is time-barred because plaintiffs knew (or ought to have known) the grounds for challenge by March 2007 and certainly by August 2006–2007; plaintiffs' inability to pursue judicial review resulted f…
24 Jul 2009

ELLIS V RED EAGLE CORPORATION LIMITED CA CA713/2008

Citation

openlaw-d99e490c_1e2d_429c_91d1_807c1f039988.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held Ellis was merely passing on information supplied by Ms Black and his emails contained puffery and no verification; the decisive misleading information came from Ms Black's financial statement which Ellis did not generate or confirm, so it was not reasonable to attribute the lender's loss to Ellis under s 9 and there was no sufficient causal nexus between Ellis's conduct and Red Eagle's loss.