9 Sept 2022
The recall application is declined because the matters raised were either previously considered in the strike out judgment, arise from pressure by the plaintiffs' own solicitor or concern confidential JSC discussions, and none constitute the limited grounds under r 11.9 or a 'very special reason' to recall the judgment.
19 Jul 2022
The Court concluded the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable, clause 11 was broad enough to bar the present proceeding against Peter (both personally and as executor), and none of the grounds advanced by the plaintiffs (duress, non-disclosure, misrepresentation, company execution irregularity or unfairness) raised an arguable case against the defendant because the complained conduct related to the plaintiffs' solicitor or was otherwise unsupported. Therefore the amended statement of claim was an abuse of process and was struck out.
3 Jun 2022
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that, in the employment jurisdiction, settlement agreements certified under s 149 ERA are governed by the ERA framework such that the common law rule in O'Connor v Hart applies: a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party had actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity (or equitable fraud is shown). The Court held s 108B PPPRA does not displace that ERA scheme for s 149 certified settlements in the present context, and accordingly the settlement was not set aside because the respondent lacked actual…
1 Jun 2022
The application for leave to appeal is declined because the Employment Court correctly treated the Agreement as a binding global settlement quantifying disputed employment entitlements and properly exercised equity and good conscience jurisdiction; the proposed questions of law are fact‑dependent or moot in light of that Agreement and do not raise issues of general or public importance warranting leave, and existing appellate authority addresses the issue of personal liability for involvement.
6 May 2022
Leave was refused because the issues were fact‑dependent, the Court of Appeal reasonably evaluated the liquidator's conduct and reliance on advice, there was no arguable miscarriage of justice or novel point of general commercial significance requiring Supreme Court determination, and the case was therefore an unsuitable vehicle for further appeal.
11 Nov 2020
Ellis J's $100,000 security for costs order was not disturbed because the interlocutory history and costs already incurred meant the order remained a proportionate protection of defendants' interests; the defendants' affirmative defences pleading prior compensation were not struck out because, despite drafting infelicities derived from s 31 Defamation Act templates, they adequately notified the plaintiff that prior compensation could reduce recoverable quantum; settlement documents relevant to quantum are prima facie discoverable and must be produced for determination of relevance and confide…
7 Sept 2020
The Court of Appeal held Southern Response made factual and mixed fact-law representations that the capped amount for the Buy Another House option was approximately $895,000 and that the Abridged DRA was the complete Arrow report; those representations were false and amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct under the FTA and actionable misrepresentation under CCLA s35. The appropriate measure of loss is the difference between the true value of the insured's contractual entitlement and the settlement sum accepted; damages awarded were adjusted to correct a calculation error.
28 Feb 2020
On an objective assessment the parties did not intend to be legally bound by the email exchanges because essential commercial terms (notably the definition and ownership of 'data' and trademark issues) remained unresolved and the parties intended a formal deed to be executed; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance and interest was dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.
11 Feb 2020
S 149 does not operate as a statutory bar to setting aside a settlement that is void or voidable for reasons such as incapacity; the orthodox two‑limb test of O'Connor v Hart applies in the employment context so a settlement entered into by an incapacitated employee is voidable only if the employer knew or ought to have known of the incapacity; on the facts the employer did not know and the settlement was therefore binding.
29 Nov 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the Employment Court's conclusions as to the validity of the Settlement Agreement and the refusal to grant an extension of time were based on factual findings supported by the evidence rather than questions of law of general or public importance; the extension refusal was also justified by the long delay, prejudice and weak merits.