New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement enforcement

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2022

GUTHRIE v BROWN [2022] NZHC 748

Citation

[2022] NZHC 748
Court

High Court

Defendant was bound by the Family Court consent order reached at the JSC through counsel's agreement; by putting his instructions and counsel communications in issue and then declining to waive privilege he undermined his defence; the proceeding under s 121 was necessary and proper to enforce the Family Court order; costs awarded to plaintiffs on a 2B scale plus a 25% uplift and disbursements of $1,472.58, recoverable by deduction from any distribution to the defendant.
10 Sept 2021

BODY CORPORATE 324371 v CLARK BROWN ARCHITECTS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2379

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2379
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found established balcony waterproofing defects and north/south Overclad façade defects that breached the Building Code and attributed primary responsibility to Brookfield Multiplex for design, supervision and quality control failures; roof defects were not established and fire defects were established as breaches at construction but their quantum could not be fully quantified; on apportionment based on roles and prior authority the Court awarded contribution of 85% of the Council's settlement to be paid by Brookfield Multiplex and 15% to the Council,…
19 Oct 2018

DAHANAYAKE v BENAJMIN HOUSING (NZ) LIMITED & ANOR [2018] NZHC 2711

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2711
Court

High Court

Defendants were entitled to an award of costs but not the full amount sought; applying HCR 14.7 and bearing in mind parties' conduct and partial success, costs were reduced by 50%, resulting in costs of $10,592.50 to be paid by the plaintiff together with $250.00 disbursements; non‑statutory claims are excluded from costs recovery.
18 Dec 2015

PETERSON V LUCAS [2015] NZCA 627

Citation

[2015] NZCA 627
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the new proceeding is an abuse of process barred by issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson principles; the pleaded s34 Designs Act claim had no real prospect of success because there was no threat to bring proceedings for infringement of copyright in a registered design and the proposed fresh evidence was neither fresh nor cogent.
10 Jul 2015

GREY v GREY [2015] NZHC 1614

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1614
Court

High Court

The settlement reached in the Family Court and subsequent course of conduct established an obligation on the Grey Family Trust to provide $60,000 to satisfy the amended testamentary provision; the trustees' conduct ratified that obligation and the High Court will exercise its inherent equitable jurisdiction to require the trustees to account and state whether they can or will raise the $60,000, pending further orders including possible trustee removal or enforcement such as charging orders.
11 Feb 2010

DIANE ROSINA TOWAI DIVETT AND ANOR V PAULINE SKEATES AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-003606

Citation

openlaw-2ef4abda_abc1_402f_a6b5_54c3ae6b7c8a.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine the first defendant was granted because, on the evidence and in view of the court's interest in ensuring compliance with its orders, it was at least arguable that the defendants had not complied with the Deed of Settlement and the Tomlin Order, which constituted 'special circumstances' under r 7.28; the cross-examination is limited to whether the compromise, properly construed, has been complied with and whether the Court's order has been breached, and is otherwise to be tightly confined and time-limited.
28 Oct 2008

BODY CORPORATE 185960 AND ORS V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-003535

Citation

openlaw-b50da250_3700_4c28_bd4d_d54a295af98b.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion and, being satisfied it was appropriate, entered judgment by consent against the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for $160,000 despite that sum being less than the settlement amount.
17 Oct 2008

POPATA V RANGI HC AK CIV 2006-404-006406

Citation

openlaw-315b31c1_3d5f_4b9b_9826_9ab84f0c0972.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered $9,960 to be paid from the security for costs because the defendant had obtained costs awards (including summary judgment costs) arising from the plaintiff's failure to adhere to the settlement, the plaintiff did not oppose the release, and the plaintiff's interest in the funds was therefore available to meet those costs.
26 Aug 2008

POPATA V RANGI HC AK CIV 2006-404-006406

Citation

openlaw-1ddf8b62_1620_4297_a840_6c62abf20e95.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff resiled from a settlement reached at a judicial settlement conference; the defendant incurred costs as a direct consequence of that resiling and was successful on the matters before the Court on 30 January 2008. Accordingly the plaintiff must pay costs to the defendant for the specified post-conference steps on a 2B basis, reduced by $760 under r 47(f) to reflect actual legal aid costs.
18 Jun 2008

ANNE RANGI V KIMETHA LEE POPATA HC AK CIV 2007-404-007458

Citation

openlaw-e16de804_a4e1_4cd7_a5f3_d863f2c00482.pdf
Court

High Court

The deed executed at the judicial settlement conference was a valid bona fide settlement; the defendant failed to establish an arguable case of duress or actionable fraudulent misrepresentation (she knowingly affirmed the agreement to avoid litigation risks), therefore summary judgment for the plaintiff ordering specific performance and costs was appropriate and leave to bring the application was granted; the application for appointment under s21 is to be referred to the registrar.