Investment Services Limited v First NZ Properties Limited

Case

[2025] NZCA 228

11 June 2025


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Investment Services Limited v First NZ Properties Limited [2025] NZCA 228 [2025] NZCA 228 11 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns various contractual, tortious, and equitable claims by First NZ Properties Limited (First NZ) and Superstore Properties Limited (Superstore) against Investment Services Limited (ISL), Mr John Millar, and Mr Paul Mephan. The Court of Appeal considered the High Court's decision that ISL and Mr Millar were liable to First NZ and Superstore for breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and fiduciary breaches. The appeal focused on the contractual terms, fiduciary duties, and the extent of liability in tort and equity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that ISL's appeal regarding the fee arrangements involving Gravtec and Terra Firma was dismissed, but allowed the appeal concerning the Symonds Street property gain fee. ISL's appeal regarding its liability in negligence to First NZ was also allowed, as was its appeal regarding its liability for unjust enrichment concerning the Symonds Street property gain fee. Mr Millar's appeal in relation to his liability to First NZ for the Symonds Street property gain fee was allowed, but his appeal concerning the payments and benefits received by Gravtec and Terra Firma was dismissed. Mr Mephan's appeal regarding his liability to First NZ was allowed. The appeal by ISL concerning its liability to Superstore was allowed, but Mr Millar's appeal concerning his liability to Superstore was dismissed. First NZ must pay Mr Mephan's costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements. No other orders for costs are made.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Commercial Law

  • Contract Law

  • Corporate Law & Governance

Legal Concepts

  • Breach of Contract

  • Unjust Enrichment

  • Fiduciary Duty

  • Mens Rea & Intention

  • Contract Formation

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

  • Unconscionable Conduct

  • Knowing Receipt

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

12

Statutory Material Cited

0