19 Sept 2017
GAVIGAN & ANOR v EICHELBAUM [2017] NZCA 412
- Citation
- [2017] NZCA 412
- Court
- Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because Whata J erred in finding actionable misleading and deceptive conduct under s9 FTA: the representations were statements of future intent and there was no evidence the maker lacked intention to perform when made; because the s174 Companies Act relief awarded by the judge was founded on that erroneous s9 finding, the s174 award also fell; issue estoppel was correctly rejected by the High Court; the counterclaim for legal costs was properly dismissed as too remote; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.
- Misleading and deceptive conduct (s9 fta)
- Oppressive conduct (s174 companies act)
- Shareholding/option transfer
- Statutory demand
- Costs and remoteness
- Issue estoppel