Legal Research
Cases
Smith v Shaw

Smith v Shaw

Case [2020] NZHC 238 19 May 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Smith v Shaw

High Court Auckland

CIV-2019-404-1685

[2020] NZHC 238; [2020] 3 NZLR 661

19 May 2020

Judgment of Fitzgerald J

A Court-ready copy of this decision may be found at the following (paid) link .

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Smith v Shaw

Sign in free to access the full text

Details

AGLC: Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238
Case: [2020] NZHC 238
Decision Date: 19 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

14

AGLC Citation

Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238

Most Recent Citation

Gibbs v Windmeyer [2021] NZHC 2582

Cases citing this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Rae v Commissioner of Police
[2024] NZHC 3417

…26 High Court judgment, above n 1, at [21], [41] and [62]. 27 At [41]. 28 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [62].…
Taylor v Vernon
[2024] NZHC 2449

…45 At [13.29] and [13.30]–[13.34], referencing Nina Khouri “Mediation” [2021] NZ L Rev 169 at 195; Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34] and [45]; Body Corporate 212050 v Covekinloch Auckland Ltd (in liq) [2017] NZHC 2642 at [94]; and TPT Forests Ltd v Penfold [2022] NZEmpC 236 at [31], but notin…
Nottingham v Attorney-General
[2024] NZHC 2410

…3 Kidd v Van Heeren (1997) 11 PRNZ 422 (CA). 4 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [63]. 5 Roebuck v Liddle [2023] NZHC 1479 at [33]. 6 Sleeman v ANZ Banking Group (NZ LTD) (1994) 7 PRNZ 508 (HC) at 510.…
Martin v Martin
[2024] NZHC 1399 Para 46

…9 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [46]; Fitzgerald J did not waive the privilege applying to documents relating to a “without prejudice save as to costs” offer that had been made by one of the parties to resolve family proceedings. 10 Sheppard Industries Ltd v Specialized Bicycle Components Inc…
Wakefield v Network Waitaki Limited
[2024] NZHC 97 Para 32

…NZEmpC 140. 6 Woolley v Marlborough District Council [2023] NZHC 3840 at [110], citing S mith v Smith [2016] NZHC 1197 at [32]–[33]. 7 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [63]. 8 Helen & Lucy Enterprises Ltd v Steve Taylor & Associates North Shore Limited [2019] NZHC 2903 at [54].…
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Zag Limited
[2023] NZHC 1470 Para 46

…aw Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.94]. 32 See Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 1229. 33 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238 at [46]. 34 At [34].…
Waterfall Park Developments Limited v Hadley
[2022] NZHC 2221

…10 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661. 11 At [35], citing Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Co , above n 8, at 2448-2449 per Robert Walker LJ. 12 At [36], citing Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd , above n 3, at [27] per Lord Clarke. 13 At [36].…
Waterfall Park Developments Ltd v Hadley
[2022] NZHC 2211

…10 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661. 11 At [35], citing Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Co , above n 8, at 2448-2449 per Robert Walker LJ. 12 At [36], citing Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd , above n 3, at [27] per Lord Clarke. 13 At [36].…
Bartletts Creek Vineyard Ltd Partnership v Vinlink Marlborough Ltd
[2022] NZHC 1012

…10 Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] NZCA 234, [2009] 3 NZLR 400 at [83]. See also a review of the relevant authorities in Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]– [42]. 11 Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436 (CA) at 2444.…
Little v Little
[2022] NZHC 601 Para 34

…8 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]–[42].…
Rabobank New Zealand Ltd v Phillips
[2022] NZHC 3390 Para 34

…58 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]–[53]; and Gibbs (as beneficiary of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) v Windmeyer (as trustee of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) [2021] NZHC 2582 at [73]–[77] and [86]–[89]. 59 Law Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.…
Christian v Bain
[2021] NZHC 3390 Para 34

…58 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]–[53]; and Gibbs (as beneficiary of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) v Windmeyer (as trustee of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) [2021] NZHC 2582 at [73]–[77] and [86]–[89]. 59 Law Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.…
Gibbs v Windmeyer
[2021] NZHC 2582

…13 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661. 14 Law Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.55]. 15 Smith v Shaw , above n 13, at [34]. 16 Ms Bruton in fact uses the term “serious impropriety”. That seems to be based on Sheppard Industries Ltd v Specialised Bicy…

View all 13 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 1 of 1 shown

[2020] 3 NZLR 661
[2020] 3 NZLR 661

…[2020] NZHC 238; [2020] 3 NZLR 661…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.