New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Taking of accounts

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2023

LIU v HE [2023] NZHC 1848

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1848
Court

High Court

Leave to file the second amended statement of claim was granted because the defendant consented and the trial date could be maintained; the application for an order for the taking of an account was dismissed because liability to the plaintiffs has not been established, the application amounted to a fishing expedition seeking further discovery rather than a proper account, the GST issue could be addressed without a full account, and relevant documents had already been discovered; further discovery orders were declined given the imminence of trial and existing disclosure; costs awarded to defen…
20 Jun 2022

DONGLIN DENG v LU ZHENG [2022] NZSC 76

Citation

[2022] 1 NZLR 151
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal: contemporaneous internal accounts, the 31 March 2010 reconciliation, the Bella Vista materials and the mutually negotiated Principles in Separation collectively proved that Messrs Zheng and Deng carried on a business in common with a view to profit (a partnership) despite the use of corporate vehicles; company shareholdings and formalities did not preclude the partnership; the matter should proceed to accounting as previously remitted; cultural and translation issues are relevant but did not alter the dispositive documenta…
27 Nov 2015

VAN HEEREN v KIDD [2015] NZCA 574

Citation

[2015] NZCA 574
Court

Court of Appeal

A stay of execution was refused because the balance of justice favored the respondent's immediate entitlement to execute on the High Court judgment; the appellant's evidence that he lacks control of assets via foreign foundations was insufficient to show that enforcement steps would render his appeal rights nugatory and effective remedies (eg examination on oath and further High Court orders) remain available to address any concealment or non‑compliance.
9 Oct 2015

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2015] NZHC 2475

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2475
Court

High Court

The stay was dismissed because the defendant failed to show that enforcement of the High Court's orders would render the appeal nugatory; payment of USD25m into Court with court control over release protects the defendant's appeal rights; the defendant did not establish that the accounting orders would impose unjustified or disproportionate burdens sufficient to justify a stay; balancing the prejudice, delay and plaintiff's entitlement to the fruits of judgment favoured enforcement rather than a stay.
25 Mar 2013

MA V TAY & ORS HC AK CIV 2011-404-008215

Citation

openlaw-b25ac31c_f60e_40aa_9def_690a1c90f92e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the security for costs application because a prior summary judgment in Ms Ma's favour and the likelihood of general damages made ordering security unjustified; the court struck out Mr Tay's separate claim as an abuse of process/res judicata because the alleged joint venture and disproportionate capital contributions were issues that could and should have been raised as a counterclaim or set-off in the earlier proceedings; the application for summary judgment by Ms Ma on the later claim was dismissed because there were genuine factual disputes about the existence and terms…
21 Mar 2011

LIBRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V CLARK HC DUN CIV-2002-412-000039

Citation

openlaw-273e86ef_e0ab_47e9_933d_fa985be6a3b0.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held that defendant owed equitable/fiduciary duties in winding up and breached them by excluding plaintiffs and abandoning partnership entitlements; as a result defendant must account for realised and unrealised profits and for a proved loss of chance (Cargill House) quantified at NZD 250,000; account taking to be conducted project-by-project with specified deemed completion/wind-up dates and directions on evidence standards for disputed invoices, valuation dates (Cargill 30 June 2010), treatment of shareholders' advances (6% interest to be imputed), and specific adjustments (Law Street…
21 Dec 2010

GOLDSMITH AND ORS V CARTER AND ORS HC TAU CIV-2010-470-281

Citation

openlaw-d2aefc5b_125c_4234_81c2_403aee0eec4a.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the agreement could be characterised as a joint venture in respect of developing two apartments, the High Court held it was not a general fiduciary relationship that could support implying a term obliging appellants to bear additional costs; such an implied term would contradict clear express contract terms (notably clause 16 obliging Riverglen to cause construction arrangements and fixing the $516,000 price), so the District Court's orders imposing initial cost obligations on appellants were set aside and the matter remitted for further proceedings.
5 May 2010

V A CRAWSHAW V S PAXTON-PENMAN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-001828

Citation

openlaw-3f5ad8d3_a444_45a9_ba26_962bad686239.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the plaintiff's claims against the second defendant do not require determination of an employment relationship problem and therefore are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority; the $60,000 arose under the sale and purchase agreement as vendor-purchaser rights, not under the employment agreement, so the jurisdictional objection failed.
13 Oct 2008

CLARK V LIBRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA390/2008

Citation

openlaw-b70eeadc_3f98_4518_aeb0_7772bd55cc2e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because the issues the appellant sought to reargue were already finally determined by earlier judgments: the partnership's interest in the Cargill House project continued after the appellant's unilateral termination and extended to profits and shareholdings arising from the project (including the appellant's 50% interest in Cargill Hotel 2002 Ltd), so the appeal constituted an abuse of process and dismissal was appropriate.
22 Nov 2006

STIRLING V STIRLING HC WHA CIV 2006-488-409

Citation

openlaw-223d0b03_6f96_4c96_8f30_8b0e1400fd4d.pdf
Court

High Court

The originating application sought to relitigate matters that were adjudicated by Keane J (including the valuation and amounts owing to the deceased partner's estate) and was therefore an abuse of process/res judicata; accordingly the application was struck out under the Court's strike-out jurisdiction (rr186/477) as clearly untenable.