New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Successor liability

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2021

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LTD v HEARTLAND BANK LTD [2021] NZHC 3227

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3227
Court

High Court

The clause in the Deed requiring louvre installations was too uncertain as drafted (no adequate specification of type, dimensions, fixation or extent) and the post-execution 'fixed louvre' agreement was not a binding variation of the four-party deed; accordingly the Deed term was unenforceable. Independently, Escrow failed to prove causation or quantifiable loss because its redevelopment plans were unrealistic/not shown likely to obtain consent and effective low-cost design mitigations existed; claim dismissed.
17 Jul 2012

KOYAMA v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC WN CIV 2010-485-1493

Citation

openlaw-cba4891a_8205_4924_a103_c11d026e45ff.pdf
Court

High Court

The transitional provisions of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 create a limited sunset period for continuing proceedings against a dissolved district law society; the New Zealand Law Society does not assume open-ended liability for historical complaints; the appellant had no pending complaint by the relevant cut-off (having indicated complaints were dropped) so the Tribunal correctly held it lacked jurisdiction; the Tribunal was entitled to determine the jurisdictional challenge on the papers under its statutory procedure and there was no basis on this appeal to overturn that process.
30 Jul 2009

BURROWS V HAPAG-LLOYD (NEW ZEALAND) LTD HC AK CIV 2009-404-002489

Citation

openlaw-a192e64e_04df_438b_ad9b_05be160973fb.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff produced no evidence that the defendant assumed liability for contracts with CP Ships (UK) Ltd; corporate records and defendant evidence established separate legal entities; accordingly the plaintiff had no prospect of success and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and the judge declined to exercise discretion to order costs against the aided plaintiff under s 40.
13 Mar 2009

WHITFIELD AND VAN DELDEN AS RECEIVERS OF THE BOWDEN NO 14 TRUST V WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-5672

Citation

openlaw-8d6dcc63_8e35_4a93_9558_d7999b85a383.pdf
Court

High Court

The Act and Proposal Order unequivocally transferred designated assets and liabilities from WBC to WNZL (ss 8 and 9) and s13 preserves and permits continuation of claims by or against the successor in its own name; accordingly WBC ceased to be liable as from 1 November 2006 and must be struck out as a defendant, the claim to be pursued against WNZL.
19 Oct 2006

BENNETT & ORS V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL & ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-7348

Citation

openlaw-cb06d6d6_c6ef_49a3_8c47_1633d5909109.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to strike out was refused because s 40(1) can apply to land acquired before the Act and being 'held for a public work' is not inconsistent with the land being 'no longer required' for that public work at commencement; the presumption against retrospectivity did not displace the clear textual and purposive effect of s 40; issues of unfairness or impracticability are matters for s 40(2) and for fuller factual inquiry, so the claim is not so clearly untenable as to warrant striking out.

New Zealand Case Law

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LTD v HEARTLAND BANK LTD [2021] NZHC 3227

KOYAMA v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC WN CIV 2010-485-1493

BURROWS V HAPAG-LLOYD (NEW ZEALAND) LTD HC AK CIV 2009-404-002489

WHITFIELD AND VAN DELDEN AS RECEIVERS OF THE BOWDEN NO 14 TRUST V WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-5672

BENNETT & ORS V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL & ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-7348