Amaltal v Maruha

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 46/2006
[2006] NZSC 69

BETWEENAMALTAL CORPORATION LIMITED

Appellant

ANDMARUHA CORPORATION AND ANOR

Respondents

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Counsel:A R Galbraith QC and B R Latimour for Appellant

J G Miles QC and Z G Kennedy for Respondents

Judgment:6 September 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.Amaltal’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents of $2,500.
B.Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C.The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are:

(i)Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii)Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.

REASONS
[1]      Amaltal has been found to have committed the tort of deceit. It does not raise any further challenge to that finding. It has sought leave to appeal to this Court on the grounds that the wrong legal test has been applied under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 to the tort of deceit and that the Court of Appeal has misdirected itself in law as to the purpose and effect of s 28 in relation to deceit and other causes of action involving fraud or concealment by fraud.
[2]       Amaltal submits that the appropriate test under s 28 is to be found in the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co(a firm).[1] Assuming that to be so, we consider, however, that the argument that the Court of Appeal either misunderstood or misapplied what was said in that case or failed to have proper regard to the burden of proof has no prospect of succeeding. The approach taken by the Court of Appeal is both orthodox and convincing.
[1] [1999] 1 All ER 400.
[3]       The proposed argument concerning an alleged misdirection on the purpose of the section is equally unmeritorious. It raises no question of law and amounts to nothing more than a collateral attack on the concurrent factual conclusions of the Courts below concerning deceit.
Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Appellant
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Amaltal Corporation Limited appealed against Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ). The central dispute revolved around the tort of deceit, where it was alleged that Amaltal had committed fraud. The case reached the Supreme Court after the High Court and the Court of Appeal had both found in favour of Maruha. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether Amaltal had breached any fiduciary duties owed to Maruha, and whether the Court of Appeal had erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court. The Supreme Court had to determine if the lower courts had applied the correct legal test under section 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 in relation to the tort of deceit, and if there had been any misdirection concerning the purpose and effect of this section.

The Supreme Court held that Amaltal’s appeal did not challenge the findings of deceit, but rather the legal test applied to the limitation period. Amaltal argued that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect legal test, referencing an English case, but the Supreme Court found the argument unconvincing. The Court held that the approach taken by the Court of Appeal was orthodox and convincing, and that the proposed argument regarding the purpose of section 28 was unmeritorious. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Amaltal's application for leave to appeal, ordering that costs of $2,500 be paid to the respondents. However, Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) were granted leave to appeal on the grounds specified in the judgment.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal's decision on the damages awarded to Maruha would be reviewed during the appeal process. The approved grounds for Maruha’s appeal were to determine whether Amaltal had breached any fiduciary duties and whether the Court of Appeal had erred in reducing the damages. This decision sets the stage for further examination of these issues in the appeal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established