Litigation
01 December 2010
Page Content
Chapman Tripp comments on recent cases of interest.
09 May 2012
Most of the commentary around Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited & Ors judgment focussed on the duty of care owed by local authorities for some statements they make in Land Information Memoranda.
But the decision also highlights the risks of making statements before a contract is concluded (whether a party to the contract or not) and provides guidance on the litigation strategy to adopt if things go wrong.
20 April 2012
The Law Commission is reviewing the commercial list and judicial specialisation as part of its review of the New Zealand Court system. Submissions in response to the Commission’s discussion paper are due on 27 April.
This Brief Counsel is one of a series Chapman Tripp is writing on various aspects of the review.
18 April 2012
The easier public access to court documents given under High Court Rules issued in 2009 has been reinforced by recent court decisions, here and in England.
That is good news for the media and good news for “follow on” damages claimants. But it may be bad news for applicants for leniency from the Commerce Commission.
29 February 2012
The take-out from the latest round of litigation between the Financial Markets Authority, Mark Hotchin and two family trusts associated with him is that the Trust is an effective asset protection tool – but that good design is essential.
28 February 2012
Had the Financial Markets Conduct Bill been in force, criminal proceedings may not have been issued against the Lombard directors and – even if charges were laid – the outcome would probably have been very different.
This is because the Bill reserves criminal sanctions for misconduct which is deliberate and reckless – and the Judge acknowledged that it was not any part of the Crown’s case that the Lombard directors had been “other than honest”.
However, the decision contains some useful reminders for directors which should continue to be relevant when the Bill becomes law.
31 October 2011
The emergence of the Internet has raised new questions around the law of defamation – most recently, whether hyperlinking comes within the scope of the publication rule.
The Canadian Supreme Court, in a decision released this month, has given freedom of the Internet a boost by concluding that to hyperlink is not to publish and therefore that simply to hyperlink to a defamation is not to defame.
This Brief Counsel looks at the judgment and its implications.
16 September 2011
The Financial Markets Authority has released an Enforcement Policy setting out its enforcement priorities and the approach it will take toward the use of its powers.
This is a useful initiative which will provide welcome clarity and transparency. We summarise the main points of the Policy and provide a brief commentary.
16 September 2011
A shock ruling this week by the Auckland High Court casts doubt on the extent to which directors can rely on their liability cover to help pay for defence costs in criminal and civil proceedings.
This Brief Counsel summarises the decision and comments on its implications for directors.
03 June 2011
A recent US appeal court decision – where a firm was stripped of a positive US$400 million verdict because it had destroyed documents unhelpful to its case – provides a useful reminder to New Zealand businesses that their discovery obligations may arise earlier than they think and that they need to have robust systems in place.
02 June 2011
Freezing orders can be used to stop debtors from spending or hiding assets which are under claim.
This Brief Counsel discusses how and when they can be an option in litigation and the benefits they offer the claimant.
02 June 2011
Chapman Tripp is pleased to congratulate two new Principals from the firm’s Auckland property and litigation teams on their promotions, effective 1 May.
10 November 2010
The longstanding view that liquidators are not personally liable for litigation costs has been reaffirmed in two recent decisions, one from the Supreme Court and the other from the High Court. This Brief Counsel looks at the two cases.
29 October 2010
Two recent English cases have further addressed legal privileges discussed in two previous Brief Counsels: the operation of “without prejudice” communications and the ambit of legal professional privilege. These decisions are significant and are likely to be considered in due course by the New Zealand courts.
27 September 2010
The appropriate boundaries of legal privilege have been considered recently by senior appellate courts both here and in Europe, with markedly different outcomes. The judgments deal with different types of legal privilege – the European Court of Justice (ECJ) with legal professional privilege and the New Zealand Supreme Court with litigation privilege. Taken together, however, they illustrate some important underlying differences in approach between the different jurisdictions.
22 September 2010
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, which implements the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement, passed its third reading on 24 August 2010. Australia passed its corresponding legislation in March 2010. The new regime creates a legal framework for trans-Tasman cooperation relating to civil proceedings and will enable disputes to be resolved more efficiently and effectively.
01 September 2010
The Supreme Court’s judgment today in The Commerce Commission v Telecom on Telecom’s 1999 dial-up internet package definitively confirms the test for liability under section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986. This Brief Counsel draws the salient points from the decision.
11 August 2010
The High Court of Australia recently found Westpac liable for defamation for dishonouring 30 cheques when there were sufficient funds to cover them. However, the Court divided 3-2 over whether the defence of qualified privilege applied, with the majority holding that it did not. This Brief Counsel analyses the Australian decision and its potential impact on New Zealand law.
13 July 2010
A recent High Court of Australia decision, involving actor Paul Hogan, confirmed that private financial and taxation documents disclosed in connection with a court proceeding can be accessed by third parties, including the media. This approach may well be imported into New Zealand’s confidentiality regime. This Brief Counsel briefly reviews the relevant law and considers the implications for business.
24 May 2010
The English Court of Appeal has suggested that the UK adopt the terminology used in New Zealand and other jurisdictions and reframe its ‘fair comment’ defence against defamation to an ‘honest opinion’ defence to better protect the free expression of sincerely held value judgements. The Court delivered this view when supporting a science writer’s right to make a series of strong criticisms of the British Chiropractic Association. This Brief Counsel looks at the decision, and its possible implications for New Zealand.
19 May 2010
The Court of Appeal judgment in favour of Blue Chip victims, the Bartles, carries a caution for lenders in the finding that the loan contract entered between the Bartles and GE Custodians Ltd is oppressive within the meaning of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and can be re-opened.
10 May 2010
Aspirations by European in-house counsel to secure the same recognition as their counterparts in law firms have been set back by an influential opinion from the Advocate-General for the European Court of Justice, delivered at the end of last month. The Court found that legal professional privilege does not apply to communications between a firm and its in-house counsel. New Zealand, fortunately, does not take the same view.
19 March 2010
John Knight, specialist in maritime law, comments on the likely consequences for Pete Bethune for boarding a Japanese whaling vessel at sea.
04 February 2010
In a decision that will be of general interest to parents, religious groups and educators; the United Kingdom’s new Supreme Court has recently considered the ability of a Jewish Faith School to refuse entry to a Jewish boy who did not meet the School’s definition of an ‘Orthodox Jew’.
04 December 2009
The Supreme Court judgment in Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey provides important guidance on the applicable limitation period for civil claims brought for breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986. This Brief Counsel looks at the Supreme Court’s decision, how it has clarified the law, and what it means for claimants and defendants in Fair Trading Act litigation.
15 October 2009
Litigation as a tool to achieve social reform may have a place in New Zealand, Chapman Tripp principal Daniel Kalderimis suggested during a Fulbright Alumni Seminar in Wellington on 21 August. “Whilst political lobbying in New Zealand has become rapidly more sophisticated over the past 15 years, we have not, yet, embraced the part of US legal culture which seamlessly incorporates ends oriented litigation into social reform strategies,” he said.
11 August 2009
New Zealand courts may feel more emboldened to prefer the intended meaning of a contract over the precise wording following a recent decision in the United Kingdom. In this Brief Counsel we look at the judgment and its implications.
30 July 2009
New Zealand's highest court last month handed down a decision which brings new certainty to the Quota Management System by finally dealing to the romantic rhetoric of the recreational fishing sector. Bruce Scott gets to the heart of the result.
19 June 2009
New District Courts civil procedure rules will come into effect from 1 November 2009, forcing parties to file more fact-specific pleadings, conduct time-limited hearings, and adhere to stricter discovery and expert evidence rules. This Brief Counsel outlines the changes and provides a short commentary on them.
10 June 2009
Media and the general public will have better access to Court documents from this Friday, 12 June, when the High Court (Access to Court Documents) Amendment Rules 2009 come into effect.
04 May 2009
Plans by the Australian and New Zealand Governments to introduce legislation this year to implement the Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement Treaty (signed on 30 July 2008) were the lead agenda item when the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General met on 17 April 2009 in Canberra.
25 March 2009
The "without prejudice" rule is a legal concept which is easy to state, but surprisingly difficult to apply in practice. What does the decision in Ofulue v Bossert mean for New Zealand?
18 April 2008
The High Court has further clarified medical privacy and informed consent, reports Justin Graham.
18 October 2007
We are all expected to comply with the law. In many circumstances this requires candid disclosure of objectives in order to receive legal advice before a course of action is selected. The protection of such disclosure and advice is “legal privilege”. In this issue of Counsel we examine two recent overseas cases which may potentially impact on the ability of clients to claim legal privilege for certain communications with their in-house counsel.
01 May 2007
Conflicts of interest and the proper management thereof is a hot topic. The heat has been generated by the recent decision in the Diagnostic Medlab case, where the High Court concluded that a board member had been conflicted and had misused confidential information. The errors at board level were seen as so grave as to warrant a $560-million contract being set aside.
20 October 2006
The House of Lords has upheld freedom of speech over a public person’s reputation in a precedent-setting defamation case.
01 December 2005
Chapman Tripp acted for David Rankin, one of the combatants in the first-ever High Court scrutiny of a contested takeover. The three resulting judgments in Takeovers Panel v Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited & Oyster Bay Marlborough Vineyards Limited (Oyster Bay 1,2 & 3)1 provide important guidance in resolving Takeovers Code breaches, and the role of the High Court in doing so.
12 May 2003
A recent decision by Austin J. of the New South Wales Supreme Court highlights the potential for some company chairmen to be subject to a higher standard of care than other directors because of their additional responsibilities.