New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies - damages

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2016

SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 41

Citation

[2016] NZHC 41
Court

High Court

The Court awarded the Trust enhanced scale costs in part: band C applied to steps 30 (briefing of affidavits), 31 (list of issues/authorities/common bundle) and 33 (preparation for hearing) because of the volume and complexity of evidence and a 15 day trial; ten discovery schedules were allowed; a limited uplift ($5,565) was awarded to reflect partly the Council's failure to admit facts but no larger uplift was justified for abandonment of defences or for refusal of the Calderbank offer given its timing and the unsettled quantum; resulting costs award was $190,217 plus disbursements $343,617.…
14 Dec 2009

WALDRON AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2009-404-7716

Citation

openlaw-121c737c_e2b3_4837_8af0_dabd28d02df9.pdf
Court

High Court

Interim relief was revoked because the evidence showed the Council acted within the statutory power in s459, the applicants failed to show necessity to preserve their position or a serious question of law that would justify restraining the public project, and the public interest in completing works to protect public health outweighed the applicants' limited private interests; any property damage can be remedied by damages.
16 Oct 2008

COMBINED BENEFICIARIES UNION INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COGS COMMITTEE AND ORS CA CA574/07

Citation

openlaw-50ba2064_58e4_4521_9041_3ebef66f0aef.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

s27(1) was held to be at least coextensive with the common law right to natural justice and therefore can apply to discretionary administrative decisions affecting claimed rights or interests; Bill of Rights damages for breach of s27(1) are available in principle but will be exceptional and rare, confined to serious breaches where other remedies are inadequate; applying those principles the High Court was correct to refuse damages in this case and the Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.
5 Dec 2006

GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND ORS V ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED, FORMERLY ANZ BANKING GROUP (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2005-404-004205

Citation

openlaw-f92ccfec_b8ea_4547_b16f_52c0e16cdb3d.pdf
Court

High Court

On proper construction the 2 August 2002 letter conveyed only that ANZ would exercise its contractual right to charge default interest in respect of the specific default until that default was rectified; it did not represent ANZ would continue to charge interest after rectification nor did it compromise ANZ's contractual rights, and therefore the plaintiffs could not succeed on their s9 Fair Trading Act claim based on that letter and summary judgment was appropriate.

New Zealand Case Law

SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 41

WALDRON AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2009-404-7716

COMBINED BENEFICIARIES UNION INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COGS COMMITTEE AND ORS CA CA574/07

GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND ORS V ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED, FORMERLY ANZ BANKING GROUP (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2005-404-004205