New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory limitation periods

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2017

LAI & ANOR v HUANG AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HSIU-LIN HUANG & ORS [2017] NZCA 499

Citation

[2017] NZCA 499
Court

Court of Appeal

Documentary estate winding-up and distribution statements and registered transmissions demonstrated administration was completed and the executrix treated the assets as her own by 31 October 2014; therefore the statutory time bars in the TPA and FPA had expired and those causes of action were properly struck out; Coatesville farm was a Trust asset not estate property; costs were properly awarded to respondents.
25 Nov 2016

SOPHIE LAI also known as SHU-HWA LAI v HUANG [2016] NZHC 2828

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2828
Court

High Court

The Court found on the evidence that the deceased's New Zealand estate had been wholly distributed on or about 31 October 2014 and the sole beneficiary had assented to and treated estate assets as her own; accordingly plaintiffs' claims under the TPA (s6) and FPA (s9) are statute‑barred and the third and fourth causes of action are struck out; the PRA claim (seventh cause) was not struck out because a constructive trust declaration could be entertained by the High Court at this stage but PRA s25 relief must be sought in the Family Court; security for costs of NZD 10,000 was ordered and plaint…
9 Apr 2014

CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY LLC v ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON [2014] NZSC 37

Citation

[2014] 1 NZLR 541
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that representative proceedings under r 4.24 may encompass common and consequential individual issues (including damages) and that those represented with consent at the time of filing are treated as having the action brought on their behalf when the representative proceeding was filed; however, where the court direction for representation requires eligible persons to opt in, the action is not 'brought' on behalf of an opting person until that person opts in (no relation back), and limitation defences therefore apply from the opt‑in date for thos…
13 Jul 2010

NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL V BODY CORPORATE 188529 AND ORS SC 27/2010

Citation

SC 27/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether and in what circumstances a territorial authority carrying out Building Act regulatory functions owes a duty of care to purchasers (including investor and subsequent purchasers); the proposed cross-appeal by Blue Sky regarding negligence in issuing a LIM was dismissed because a LIM accurate on its face does not impose an obligation on the authority to re-examine earlier documents and treating a LIM as restarting limitation periods would be contrary to legislative intent.

New Zealand Case Law

LAI & ANOR v HUANG AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HSIU-LIN HUANG & ORS [2017] NZCA 499

SOPHIE LAI also known as SHU-HWA LAI v HUANG [2016] NZHC 2828

CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY LLC v ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON [2014] NZSC 37

NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL V BODY CORPORATE 188529 AND ORS SC 27/2010