New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repossession

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2021

UDC FINANCE LIMITED v WHITTINGTON [2021] NZHC 627

Citation

[2021] NZHC 627
Court

High Court

The adjudication was ordered because the sealed costs judgment remained in force (no appeal filed), the debtor had no valid defence to the debt, procedural irregularity alleged (District Court stamp) was immaterial, and payments to the late mother's vehicle did not create a security interest enforceable by the debtor; the debtor also declined to pay, warranting adjudication under the Insolvency Act 2006.
20 Apr 2020

IRWIN v MULES [2020] NZHC 748

Citation

[2020] NZHC 748
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal in part: conversion is actionable per se so loss is not a required element; the deed between Mr Alexander and the appellant constituted a valid assignment of the causes of action (there was a genuine commercial interest and no unlawful trafficking in litigation); accordingly both respondents are liable in conversion (and the first respondent also in detinue for continued retention); unresolved questions about the validity of the second registered security interest and quantum of damages must be remitted to the District Court.
23 Nov 2017

BUDGET LOANS LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2017] NZCA 539

Citation

[2017] NZCA 539
Court

Court of Appeal

Extensions of time to file the leave applications were granted but leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not raise matters of general or public importance and there was no realistic risk of miscarriage of justice; Edwards J's interpretation of s35 CRA was orthodox and not open to serious challenge, the companies were properly characterised as acting "in trade", the factual finding that representations were conveyed to external agents stood, and the limitation period issue was not arguable in the applicants' favour.
17 Oct 2017

CONWAY V MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZCA 463 [17 October 2017]

Citation

(2017) 10NZBLC 99
Court

Court of Appeal

The security interests held by MB Finance over the vehicles were not mortgages but PPSA security interests; therefore PPSA s114(4) did not import PLA ss128–136 and MB Finance was not required to comply with the Property Law Act notice regime; the appellant's defence based on non‑compliance with PLA notice requirements failed and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Jun 2017

DE LAGE LANDEN LTD v CRAFAR [2017] NZHC 1419

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1419
Court

High Court

The counterclaim was struck out because it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the statutory duties alleged (including s110 PPSA) applied to the secured party selling collateral and not to DLL in the pleaded circumstances; PPSA permits possession without notice and the guarantor had contracted out of notice under s107; alleged duty of care and causal links to DLL were not tenable; the defects were substantive and not curable by amendment.
16 Aug 2016

MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v CONWAY [2016] NZHC 1896

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1896
Court

High Court

The court found MBFS owned the vehicles on a dealer floor plan and the consumer credit agreements expressly reserved legal and beneficial ownership to MBFS until full payment; title therefore never passed to the defendant, the Property Law Act mortgage regime did not apply, MBFS validly used the CRA (and alternatively PPSA) procedures to repossess and sell, and MBFS was entitled to judgment for the outstanding balances.
13 Jul 2016

MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LTD v CONWAY [2016] NZHC 1587

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1587
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of defence and to file a counterclaim but stayed the counterclaim pending determination of Mercedes-Benz's substantive claim; refused to issue subpoenas for the plaintiff's counsel as witnesses because their evidence was not relevant to the main claim; adjourned the joinder application to a case management conference after judgment on the substantive claim; ordered supplementary discovery and specific pre-trial directions to ensure the trial could proceed as scheduled.
21 Apr 2016

DELMONT v BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZHC 762

Citation

[2016] NZHC 762
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court finding that the sale was commercially reasonable because independent assessments by an experienced valuer and the auction house supported the sale price, the appellant had an opportunity to market the car and failed to provide evidence of a higher achievable market value or to mitigate loss, and therefore no breach causing measurable loss was established.
25 Nov 2014

FM CUSTODIANS LTD v CENTRAL HOUSEMOVERS LTD [2014] NZHC 2948

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2948
Court

High Court

The court ordered discovery of all documents in the first category (documents relating to CHM's repossession and resale, including source documents for claimed costs) as relevant to testing quantum and apportionment between defendants, but refused the second and third categories because no foundation or relevance was shown and the liquidator's report indicated no recoveries, and the fourth category was not pursued; costs on the application were to lie where they fall.
6 Oct 2014

GRANT & KHOV v BB2 HOLDINGS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2504

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2504
Court

High Court

The Court found Doyle By Design insolvent during the relevant periods; Blackbird was partly unsecured by early 2010 (recognised by its director) so payments in 2010 ($6,876.15) were received as payments to an unsecured creditor and are voidable under s 292 because they exceed what unsecured creditors would receive; liquidators failed to prove Blackbird was not fully secured for earlier payments (2008–2009) so those payments were not set aside; s 296(3) defence rejected on change of position grounds; order for recovery of $6,876.15 plus costs to respondent on a 2B basis (costs netted against r…