NICON LIMITED v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2655

NICON LIMITED v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2655

The Court held that the first document (HOA) was a binding agreement and that its terms required Stream to offer Nicon the chance to participate in competitive tendering as the preferred contractor; Stonewood acted as agent of Tower/Stream; the alleged fee quote agreement was not established; overall the parties had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2655
Parties
Plaintiff: NICON LIMITED; First Defendant: TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED; Second Defendant: STREAM GROUP NZ PTY LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute (preliminary Questions) / Costs Determination Following Judgment on Preliminary Questions
Outcome
Costs lie where they fall.
Legal Topics
Existence and Construction of Heads of Agreement, Obligation to Offer Demolition Work, Preferred Contractor and Tendering, Agency of Stonewood Homes, Existence of Fee Quote Agreement, Allocation of Costs
Contract Law Agency Insurance Law Civil Procedure Costs Existence and Construction of Heads of Agreement Obligation to Offer Demolition Work Preferred Contractor and Tendering +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NICON LIMITED

Plaintiff

TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED

First Defendant

STREAM GROUP NZ PTY LIMITED

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute (preliminary Questions) / Costs Determination Following Judgment on Preliminary Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Heads of Agreement (HOA) was a binding contract
  2. 2 Whether Tower/Stream were obliged to offer Nicon demolition work for properties Nicon quoted/assessed
  3. 3 Whether Stonewood Homes acted as agent of Tower/Stream

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the first document (HOA) was a binding agreement and that its terms required Stream to offer Nicon the chance to participate in competitive tendering as the preferred contractor; Stonewood acted as agent of Tower/Stream; the alleged fee quote agreement was not established; overall the parties had commensurate success and therefore costs lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Costs lie where they fall.

Orders

  • Costs lie where they fall.