New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Success fee

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2019

Triastra Limited v The Proprietors of Taharoa “C” Block [2019] NZHC 2230

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2230
Court

High Court

The Court held the 26 July 2012 letter was a clear notice validly terminating the Final Agreement effective 18 October 2012 under clause 3; from 18 October 2012 parties operated under an ad hoc contract limited to consultancy services at NZD16,000/month; that ad hoc contract was terminable on reasonable notice which on the facts was approximately one month; Taharoa's two-week notice of 21 May 2013 was therefore insufficient and constituted breach/repudiation, entitling Triastra to damages only for the reasonable notice period (contract treated as ending 26 June 2013); Triastra's estoppel clai…
8 Apr 2013

KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013

Citation

SC 4/2013
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because (1) the question of the lawfulness of pre-2006 conditional fee agreements was of historical interest only and did not meet the Supreme Court's leave criteria, and (2) the Court of Appeal correctly held, on available evidence, that the fee arrangement was not a consumer credit contract and did not misallocate the onus; accordingly no substantial miscarriage of justice was shown and leave was refused.
11 Nov 2011

DONOVAN DRAINAGE & EARTHMOVING LTD V HALLS EARTHWORKS LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-000029

Citation

openlaw-24ce1737_529e_4258_8ced_83121c6a48a4.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the contractual interpretation ground had no merit and the expert's success fee, even if improper, would not have changed the outcome; the expert's fee was excluded from recoverable disbursements and no costs were awarded on the leave applications, costs to lie where they fall.
19 Jul 2006

CARLYLE VENTURE CAPITAL LTD V ROBB RESOURCES (NZ) LTD CA CA111/05

Citation

openlaw-26c284a0_515c_42ff_b17f_32ba6761cba6.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was a fairly arguable defence that the original contract was varied or novated by events of 30 January and 5 February 2004 such that NZ Property Investors may have assumed liability and Robb been released; those factual disputes could not be resolved on affidavit and documentary evidence alone and therefore summary judgment was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

Triastra Limited v The Proprietors of Taharoa “C” Block [2019] NZHC 2230

KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013

DONOVAN DRAINAGE & EARTHMOVING LTD V HALLS EARTHWORKS LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-000029

CARLYLE VENTURE CAPITAL LTD V ROBB RESOURCES (NZ) LTD CA CA111/05