New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation of chattels

Legal area

Court

15 May 2015

AYSE BRUMMER v ANNE-MARIE MURREL [2015] NZHC 1036

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1036
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was entered in part because defendant had no arguable defence to liability under s52 for having obtained and controlled estate vehicles and must account; limited set‑offs were allowed as either established or reasonably arguable and disputed set‑offs and excess valuation of the Oldsmobile must go to trial; leave to join third parties was refused because of delay, lack of evidence of third parties' ability to pay and the need not to permit wrongful meddling in estates to delay accounting.
11 Feb 2014

WESTON v COSTELLO [2014] NZHC 113

Citation

[2014] NZHC 113
Court

High Court

The judge was entitled to prefer the vendor's evidence about turnover and disclosure of the OP Columbia payments and land use consent; appellant failed to prove actionable misrepresentation or loss on the balance of probabilities; the contractual buy‑back obligation related to chattels left behind and not to a going concern, so second‑hand valuation was appropriate; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the District Court judgment stands.
12 Dec 2013

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v WAEWAEPA STATION 2002 LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3321

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3321
Court

High Court

On Te Rimu's default the Bank obtained an immediate right to possession; Waewaepa's retention and refusal to return the sheep constituted conversion; the transfer was not a sale in the ordinary course of Te Rimu's business and was engineered by a director on both sides who knew the transaction defeated the Bank's security, so defences under ss 45 and 53 PPSA fail; summary judgment awarded to the Bank for the minimum established value of the sheep and interest, GST excluded from damages.
16 Apr 2010

KONI V KONI HC AK CIV-2009-404-007772

Citation

openlaw-2517493e_86c0_43ad_8f43_e78503671524.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that, balancing the risk of serious injustice against the need for finality and the risk of re-litigation, leave to adduce further evidence was warranted in respect of the Redpath Trust and Dorchester share documentation concerning the Waterloo Quadrant apartment, specified post-separation contribution items ([37](h),(i),(j)), and a fresh valuation of the boat; the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Family Court for rehearing on those issues, with specific directions for inspection and costs allocation on the leave application.
4 Jun 2009

COX V YOUNG HC ROT CIV 2004-463-000240

Citation

openlaw-34850d36_1c1b_4fa0_8ea0_38940aa28300.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 4(b) requires an in‑site replacement cost less fair wear and tear valuation; applying available valuations and a 25% depreciation from April 1997 yields $45,000 (GST inclusive) for chattels; unjust enrichment award limited to proven item of $4,155 (heat exchanger); defendants proved rent/insurance/rates arrears totalling $35,093.82 and are entitled to contractual interest (clause 2 rectified to 17% p.a.) and to interest on rent of $126,545.54; plaintiff may apply for statutory interest on her awards and defendants may apply to rectify clause 5(f).
16 Sept 2008

CDT HOLDINGS LIMITED V JOHANN LIEBENBERG AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2008 409 947

Citation

openlaw-a556a542_9dc8_4811_a431_49818fa6351b.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was appropriate because the defendants failed to raise bona fide, reasonably arguable defences supported by evidence; allegations of misrepresentation and inflated chattel values were bare assertions unrelated to the mortgage obligation and therefore could not operate as set offs; profit on the plaintiff's lawful resale did not reduce the defendants' debt.
23 Apr 2008

JOHNSTON V JOHNSTON HC AK CIV 2008-404-00817

Citation

openlaw-f4a85c8b_90e9_49e9_8aae_aae7677fea8e.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding there was no error in the Family Court judge's exercise of discretion: interlocutory costs will not be remitted for re-determination; the judge intended the 5% interest to apply only to the final adjustment figure of $146,359 from the September 2004 judgment to payment; and the chosen 5% rate was not wrong in principle in the family law context given the facts.
17 Dec 2007

P GLOVER V TJ KILLALEA HC WN CIV-2006-485-2412

Citation

openlaw-6e7e093c_e59c_4971_9474_2d458d6cf079.pdf
Court

High Court

On the limited evidence (historic insurance valuation and competing expert opinions) the only proper present estimate of value for the missing pearls is $2,500; that sum is to be deducted from the $20,000 payment to Mr Glover and paid to Ms Russell in lieu of the pearls; no additional compensation or costs awarded and costs are to lie where they fall.