28 Nov 2023
The development is damaged; a comprehensive scheme under s74 is appropriate in the best interests of unit owners to ensure effective remediation; the proposed scheme is appropriately detailed and broadly supported and does not depart from the Act or rules more than reasonably necessary; accordingly the Court orders settlement of the proposed scheme dated 19 September 2023.
30 Oct 2023
The Supreme Court held the Crown met the measured duty in nuisance: the hazard was shared between the appellant's land and Crown land, remediation proposals were not practicable or proportionate given cost, planning constraints and limited benefit, and the Crown had taken reasonable steps (warnings, access facilitation and contextual policy responses); accordingly no further remediation order or award of damages was required and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Oct 2023
Kiwibank contravened s 22(f) and/or (h) of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 by issuing misleading account statements in relation to home loan fees, set-up fees and everyday account fees; the realistic maximum for the conduct is $5 million, the appropriate starting point is $1,250,000, and applying a 35% total discount for self-reporting, cooperation and early admission with full remediation produces a final pecuniary penalty of $812,500 which the Court imposed; s 506 is to be interpreted narrowly and does not aggregate multiple breaches of the same provision into a single maximum across…
10 Oct 2023
Vero contravened ss 22(f) and/or (h) of the FMCA by issuing invoices that misleadingly represented customers' liabilities; the appropriate starting penalty was fixed at $6,000,000 and reduced by 35% for self-reporting, cooperation and remediation to yield a pecuniary penalty of $3,900,000, with the penalty to be applied first to the FMA's costs under s 493 FMCA.
22 Dec 2022
Cigna admitted breaches of s22(d),(f) and (h); the court accepted the FMA's interpretation that the relevant transaction consideration could support a maximum penalty of at least NZD100,000,000 but set a starting point of NZD5,500,000 after weighing s492 factors and comparable authorities, then applied a 35% discount for prompt self-reporting, full cooperation, remediation and first-time contravention to arrive at a final pecuniary penalty of NZD3,575,000, with the penalty to be applied first to the FMA's costs.
29 Jul 2021
Because the reinstatement project was evidenced as complete by New Code Compliance Certificates, notices of completion were served on all affected parties in accordance with the Scheme, and no notices of opposition were filed within the Rule 7.24(1) timeframe, the court was satisfied to exercise its power under s 74(8) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 to discharge the Scheme.
3 Feb 2021
The court found the buildings were damaged and the proposed single, detailed remedial scheme had broad owner support, was sufficiently detailed, fair in its allocation of costs by utility interest, and appropriate under s 74 Unit Titles Act 2010; accordingly the court made an order settling the scheme and ancillary orders to give effect to it.
15 Jun 2020
Although the general presumption under r 15.23 would have made the discontinuing applicant (Ms Smith) liable for costs, the Court exercised its discretion given the reasonableness of both parties' conduct and partial success by Ms Smith; the Court ordered the Body Corporate to pay Reveal's expert costs of $18,715.56 (including GST) and directed that all other costs and disbursements incurred by the parties arising from the litigation lie where they fall.
4 Sept 2018
Plaintiff entitled to costs because it obtained judgment for $299,120.26; costs awarded on a 2B basis with no uplift because defendant's conduct did not justify increased costs and rejection of settlement offers was not unreasonable; specific claimed items (second counsel, certain inspection/particular steps, and step 28 discovery claim) are disallowed; freezing order costs and interest awarded as claimed by plaintiff.
20 Nov 2015
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and formulated three appellate questions: interpretation of the 'clean and tidy' lease clauses with respect to remediation, liability under an implied term against waste, and the temporal scope of any remediation obligation; the Court did not decide the substantive merits but allowed these issues to proceed to appeal.