New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third‑party joinder

Legal area

Court

26 Jul 2022

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1808 [26 July 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1808
Court

High Court

Because QLDC succeeded in striking out the bathroom pod claim, costs follow the event: Body Corporate is ordered to pay QLDC costs on a 2B scale with disbursements (filing fee) and allowance for second counsel; however, because QLDC delayed joining the tenth third party and that joinder need not have occurred had the strike out been brought earlier, QLDC must pay the tenth third party's costs on a 2B scale (subject to a minor clarification about a .4 day item).
11 Nov 2020

Body Corporate 378351 v Auckland Council & Ors [2020] NZHC 2987

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2987
Court

High Court

The Court limited the costs award to the specific interlocutory strike-out application under r14.8 and awarded the Council scale costs and disbursements of $8,650 (including filing fee). The Court refused to order plaintiffs to reimburse the Council for the third parties' costs because the joinder of Beca and Stahlton was unjustified in light of clear ten-year longstop limitation under the Building Act and the third party claims were not weathertightness claims under WHRSA; other costs and claims for witnesses' expenses were reserved.
17 Oct 2018

PERROTT-HUNT v JOHNSTON (No.3) [2018] NZHC 2678

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2678
Court

High Court

A bankrupt's discharge under s304 extinguished potential liability for equitable contribution because contingent contribution liabilities were provable in the bankruptcy; accordingly Corban Revell cannot pursue contribution against Maurice Hunt after his discharge unless they properly plead and can prove actual fraud or fraudulent breach of trust falling within s304(2)(a); 'fraud' in s304 requires actual dishonesty and must be pleaded with particularity.
15 Aug 2014

HOTCHIN V THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED CA494/2013 [2014] NZCA 400

Citation

[2014] 3 NZLR 685
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the appeal must fail because contribution under s 17(1)(c) (and equitable contribution) requires that the parties be liable in respect of the identical, indivisible damage grounded in a common/co‑ordinate obligation; the directors' duty to avoid misleading prospectus statements and the trustees' duty to monitor compliance with trust deeds were different in nature and extent, so the trustees could not be liable for the same damage as the director; accordingly the High Court's strike‑out of the appellant's third party claims was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Aug 2013

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v HAYES - LIQUIDATOR [2013] NZHC 2120

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2120
Court

High Court

The defendant had no arguable defence to the Commissioner's claim: he admitted the payment error, the Commissioner's claim to recover the misapplied funds is strong, policy statements do not bar enforcement, impecuniosity and speculative tax 'windfall' arguments do not defeat summary judgment, s284 cannot negate a completed distribution so as to defeat the claim, and joinder of the directors would delay a clear claim and raise distinct issues of director liability; accordingly summary judgment is appropriate and leave to join third parties is refused.
3 Dec 2012

WILTSHIRE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V SYMONS HC AK CIV-2010-404-1011

Citation

openlaw-0ad4fc32_2769_48b4_b023_659e32491065.pdf
Court

High Court

The court declined to order particular discovery or interrogatories and stood over the joinder application because, while the defendants' pleaded defences arising from the disclosed settlement deed are for present purposes treated as live, discovery is not necessary at this interlocutory stage and ordering it would risk converting the summary judgment process into a full trial; the defendants may seek discovery and interrogatories later if summary judgment is not obtained.
6 Sept 2010

TREETOPS LIMITED V ALLIANZ NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-002430

Citation

openlaw-a1a9afc8_1a44_4a65_aee8_3f794030e1cb.pdf
Court

High Court

Although Treetops delayed providing full discovery, Allianz had sufficient notice and material by 2008 to identify and pursue Tonkin & Taylor; Allianz's failure to join the third party within the ten‑year limit is not shown to be sufficiently caused by Treetops' discovery delay and striking out would be unjust, so the r 7.48 application must be dismissed.
16 Feb 2007

EFFECTIVE FENCING LTD V CHAPMAN AND ANOR CA CA84/05

Citation

openlaw-621ed2d2_2188_4658_987a_2b6b2698cf3c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the $200,000 payment was a disposition of Upstairs' property for no consideration within s298; the O'Connors exercised de facto control of both companies such that Effective Fencing was an associated company for s298(2)(c); and summary judgment was properly granted because any potential claim against Ernst & Young raised distinct issues of liability and causation and did not present a real risk of producing a different outcome in the liquidators' claim.