New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res judicata/issue estoppel

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2023

HG METAL MANUFACTURING LIMITED v NAVARATNAM [2023] NZHC 637

Citation

[2023] NZHC 637
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice is dismissed because the Court found the documentary requirements under sch 1 art 35(2) had been complied with or were finally determined by prior High Court and Court of Appeal decisions, the omission to annex the sealed order to the served notice was inadvertent and caused no prejudice, service was valid, and no genuine triable cross-claim was established; accordingly there was no basis to set aside the notice and indemnity costs are appropriate.
27 Feb 2023

ROBERTSON BIXLEY LTD v JOLLY [2022] NZHC 286

Citation

[2022] NZHC 286
Court

High Court

Dismissal of the application because the alleged counterclaim had already been raised and rejected in the District Court and therefore did not constitute a genuine triable cross-claim; the bankruptcy notice was properly formed with a certified sealed order attached; the Deputy Registrar's instalment order did not create an implied stay because the creditor had not been given the opportunity to be heard and the debtor did not comply strictly with its terms.
1 Dec 2020

MOKE v REHU [2020] NZHC 3160

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3160
Court

High Court

The prior Family Court and appellate determinations that the 2008 advances were loans repayable on demand are binding; the defendant cannot now assert those advances were repaid by the $513,232.97 paid into accounts. The appeal judgment nonetheless established an overpayment credit of $48,975 in favour of the defendant. Applying that credit to the $350,000 indebtedness produces a judgment for the plaintiff of $301,025, with statutory interest from 21 January 2019, and costs to the plaintiff.
12 Nov 2019

PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2019] NZCA 548

Citation

[2019] NZCA 548
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal failed because the Lawson affidavit did not meet fresh-evidence criteria (it could have been produced at the earlier hearing and would not likely have altered the outcome), the second annulment was barred by res judicata/issue estoppel absent new evidence of fraud, Lepionka was not a secured creditor of Paterson in respect of the costs debt under the statutory definition, and even if jurisdiction existed the court properly exercised its discretion to refuse annulment given delay, Official Assignee opposition and the applicant's insolvency position.
12 Jul 2019

COOK v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2019] NZHC 1604

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because there was no arguable question of law: prior determinations conclusively resolved the special benefit issue and, on the statutory test for temporary additional support, the applicant had a calculated surplus and therefore no entitlement; accordingly the appeal had no real prospect of success and extension of time was refused.
26 Feb 2019

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (in interim liquidation) [2019] NZHC 272

Citation

[2019] NZHC 272
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the Commissioner's recalculations (including correction for the 1 December 2007 GST credit), the application of the Court of Appeal's 15% across‑the‑board remission and the administrative decision to stop accrual of penalties and UOMI after July 2008; those calculations established an admitted/established debt of $1,400,566.15 (tax/penalties/interest $1,088,461.15; costs $32,105; loan $280,000) and contingent claims of $307,389.01, and on the cashflow and balance‑sheet analysis CPL cannot meet its debts as they fall due, so the Court ordered CPL wound up and appointed liqui…
21 Nov 2018

PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3022

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3022
Court

High Court

The second application to annul under s 309(1)(a) is barred by principles of finality and res judicata because the identical contention had been previously heard and dismissed; no new evidence of fraud was produced to justify relitigation, and the applicant lacked standing to challenge the summary judgment after adjudication because the estate vests in the Official Assignee; additionally the Court would not exercise its discretion to permit the second application because of the applicant's unreasonable delay, concurrent Australian bankruptcy, and opposition by the Official Assignee supported…
29 Sept 2017

TODD PETROLEUM & SHELL PETROLEUM v VECTOR GAS [2017] NZHC 2394

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2394
Court

High Court

The application for separate trials was dismissed because the proposed split could not be reliably demarcated, would likely admit overlapping contextual and expert evidence, risk inadvertent findings and issue estoppel, produce duplication and delay (including multiple appeals and rostering/disqualification risks), and therefore any projected cost/time savings did not outweigh these substantial procedural and practical disadvantages; the parties must proceed with the full six-week fixture to hear all issues together.
28 Jul 2017

SISSON v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 326

Citation

[2017] NZCA 326
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the liquidation order conditional on payment into court of the undisputed core tax of $109,675.22 because the High Court's insolvency finding rested on an unspecified 'undisputed core debt' and insufficient scrutiny of the Commissioner's varying calculations and CPL's assets; the Court confirmed that the prior Court of Appeal direction approving a 15% pragmatic reduction in penalties is binding in measure but left precise calculations open to challenge on rehearing; limited fresh evidence (NZI email and property appraisal) was admitted.
26 Apr 2016

Lynch v White [2016] NZHC 792

Citation

[2016] NZHC 792
Court

High Court

The application for suspension was refused because the appeal lacked merit and in any event was deemed abandoned so there was no underpinning appeal for s416 relief; the Bioletti factors favoured refusal (no novelty or public interest, prejudice to creditors, no demonstrated risk of rendering appeal nugatory that would justify suspension), and the Official Assignee holds the rights to pursue the causes of action arising from adjudication.