New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Representative actions

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2019

BODY CORPORATE 423090 v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2733 [25 October 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2733
Court

High Court

The Body Corporate was ordered to provide discovery of documents held by Tulshyan Holdings Ltd relating to due diligence conducted when it purchased the Rendezvous Hotel and documents concerning negotiations over the purchase price because such documents are relevant to QBE's contention that earlier repair works were wasted and are within the Body Corporate's power to obtain via obligations on unit owners under the Unit Titles Act 2010; scope was limited to exclude transactional/funding documents and legal privilege preserved.
27 Feb 2009

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V THE COMMERCE COMMISSION CA CA316/2007

Citation

openlaw-07df7077_0abe_4dba_b9bd_279c6b9c5771.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed and the High Court proceeding is struck out as time-barred because the Commerce Commission had, or ought reasonably to have had, knowledge by the time of the investigator's affidavit and warrant preparations (no later than 24 October 2003) that it was likely that CHH's conduct caused loss; s 43(5) limitation is triggered by the applicant's (here the Commission's) discoverability and an applicant bringing a s 43 claim must commence within three years of its own or relevant loss-sufferers' discovery, with recovery limited to those loss-sufferers who themselves would have b…
6 Dec 2005

SAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS V THE WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED HC WN CIV 485-2003-2724

Citation

openlaw-7ebe46f3_16c0_4785_a775_e8a4d5517ec7.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the Wool Board breached s6(6) of the Wool Board Act 1997 by failing to consider reasonable alternative mechanisms and entities and to satisfy itself that the chosen mechanism was likely the most efficient and effective means in May 1998 (declining Saxmere) and in August 2001 (capitalising NZMC). Restitution of levies was denied because the levy was lawfully imposed and the Woolwich principle does not extend to spending choices where the levy was validly collected. The Court recognised a private cause of action for breach of s6(6) and a duty of care in negligence limited to…

New Zealand Case Law

BODY CORPORATE 423090 v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2733 [25 October 2019]

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V THE COMMERCE COMMISSION CA CA316/2007

SAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS V THE WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED HC WN CIV 485-2003-2724