Ridgecrest NZ Limited v Iag New Zealand Limited

CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date27 August 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] NZSC 129
Date27 August 2014
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 cases
  • Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust v Iag New Zealand Ltd
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 3 July 2019
    ...Ltd v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2016] NZSC 158, [2017] 1 NZLR 352 at [35]—[48]. 14 See Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 129, [2015] 1 NZLR 40 at [54] where this Court noted that the indemnity principle “is a slightly awkward phrase in the context of a replacement 1......
  • Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd T/A Zurich New Zealand
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 15 October 2014
    ...11 In this respect, the contract in issue in the present case is different to that at issue in Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 129. 12 Body Corporate 398983 v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2013] NZHC 1109 (Courtney and Heath JJ) at [68] [ Zurich (HC)]; and Zurich Aust......
  • Prattley Enterprises Ltd v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 March 2016
    ...Court judgment] at [115]. 3Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 117, [2015] 1 NZLR 40 (reissued 19 September 2014 as [2014] NZSC 129); QBE Insurance (International) Ltd v Wild South Holdings Ltd [2014] NZCA 447, [2015] 2 NZLR 4 The italicised words in the policy were defined ......
  • Tower Insurance Ltd v Skyward Aviation 2008 Ltd
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 15 December 2014
    ...of insurance law: see Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380 (CA) at 386 per Brett LJ; and Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 129 at[19] n 7 Throughout these reasons, we will use the language of cl 3 (“make payment”) rather than the corresponding but clumsier words in cl 1 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Reopening an insurance cash settlement agreement? Supreme Court says no!
    • New Zealand
    • Mondaq New Zealand
    • 22 March 2017
    ...property with a similarly performing investment. The Supreme Court also held that Prattley's reliance on Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG NZ Ltd [2014] NZSC 129 was untenable. The Court commented that the insurance arrangements in Ridgecrest were "unusual", and that Prattley's arguments were based o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT