New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Representation order (r 4.24)

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2013

COOPER v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2827

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2827
Court

High Court

Applying a liberal, facilitative approach to r 4.24 consistent with Houghton and Saunders, the Court found sufficient commonality of interest across the pleaded groups (noting limited distinctions confined to the CCFA/Consumer Group claim) and granted the representation order as sought; it approved the funder and funding agreement, ordered bank-backed security for costs as agreed, required agreed particulars of group members, and fixed an opt-in deadline of midnight 13 December 2013 (NZ time).
18 Dec 2009

SAUNDERS, MAGILL, FEENEY, HORROCKS, HUNTER, THOMAS, WITHERS V HOUGHTON AND ANOR CA CA684/2008

Citation

openlaw-eb84a31d_0543_461c_8d25_05eb60ab6400.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the representation order should be sustained subject to close judicial supervision and conditions regarding funding and security; third party litigation funding is not per se unlawful but must be court‑approved and not amount to abuse of process or champerty; security for costs and protective conditions may be required; the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the defendants is legally untenable on the pleaded facts and is struck out.