New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency and authority

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2021

BODY CORPORATE 76712 v THOMPSON WENTWORTH LTD [2021] NZHC 693

Citation

[2021] NZHC 693
Court

High Court

The Court found defendants established a prima facie case engaging r 4.4(1)(c)(ii) that issues between defendants and Mr Smith overlap with issues in the main proceeding concerning agency and authority; having weighed delay, prejudice and the interests of justice the Court exercised its discretion to grant leave to join Mr Smith as a third party and dismissed joinder of other proposed third parties.
4 Nov 2020

TAHI ENTERPRISES LTD v TE WARENA TAUA & Ors [2020] NZHC 2891

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2891
Court

High Court

The Court declined to order discovery of the Te Kawerau ā Maki membership Register or hui attendance lists under r 8.19 because the Register's personal data was not materially relevant to the substantive issues (authority/agency) but only served to identify potential defendants; ordering discovery would intrude on the privacy/confidentiality of about 400 individuals and required the same weighing exercise already undertaken by Associate Judge Smith under r 8.20/Norwich Pharmacal, risking inconsistency and duplicative litigation. The Court also refused discovery of documents relating to the MO…
26 Jul 2019

RED JACK RESOURCES LTD v SMITH DIESEL SERVICES LTD [2019] NZHC 1776 .

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1776
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the statutory demand in part: applicant failed to establish reasonably arguable counterclaims in respect of most paid invoices (including Martin and Category Two invoices) and the alleged sale of the MT41 truck due to lack of evidence, payment/ratification or inconsistency with contemporaneous conduct, but did establish narrowly arguable counterclaims for pump costs and for damage/removal claims (including engine control unit removal) totalling $185,057.75. Consequently $427,178.59 remained owing and the applicant was ordered to pay that sum within 10 working days; in defa…
22 May 2019

WEST VILLAGE CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD v ACROW LTD [2019] NZHC 1035

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1035
Court

High Court

West Village established an arguable, genuine and substantial dispute that it did not issue the requirement necessary to trigger the continuity guarantee and that no binding contract to pay for ongoing scaffolding arose by conduct; accordingly the statutory demand must be set aside under s 290(4)(a) and the dispute resolved outside the Companies Act summary jurisdiction.
17 Nov 2017

NGOI v WEN [2017] NZCA 519

Citation

(2017) 19 NZCPR 1
Court

Court of Appeal

The vendor authorised the agent to effect the sale and receive acceptance; the vendor objectively made an offer by initialling next to $5.28m; the purchaser communicated acceptance to the authorised agent at about 5:30 pm; that communication constituted a binding contract enforceable under s 24 Property Law Act 2007 without the need for the purchaser to re-initial the agreement adjacent to the price.
31 Oct 2017

READING ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v AMP CAPITAL SHOPPING CENTRES PTY LTD [2017] NZHC 2337

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2337
Court

High Court

Defendants entitled to summary judgment because on the objective construction of the correspondence and documentary terms the parties did not intend to be bound until the respective boards had approved the Heads of Agreement; the June 21, 2016 letter did not create a binding lease, did not create an enforceable process contract to require defendants to produce an Agreement to Lease, and equitable estoppel/unconscionability were not established.
14 Jul 2017

CORRICK v SILICH [2017] NZHC 1630

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1630
Court

High Court

No binding contract arose: advertising an 'open tender' constituted an invitation to treat, the management group lacked authority to accept the 19 December offer on behalf of the syndicate, the 19 December offer was not validly accepted by the named vendors, no concluded agreement existed; plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims fail (no pleaded or proven breach by First–Fifth), Corrick breached fiduciary duty by placing himself in conflict though no loss resulted; tortious interference and conversion claims fail; plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
31 Jul 2015

GRAZ4U LTD v COMBINED VET SERVICES (GORE) LTD [2015] NZHC 1801

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1801
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because Graz4u failed to demonstrate a genuine and substantial dispute that the debt was not owing; the demand wording, while clumsy, was not invalid; however Graz4u established that CVS could not establish entitlement to 18% p.a. interest on the account and the recoverable principal was fixed at $51,574.31 to be paid within 15 working days.
10 Dec 2014

NEW CORE PROPERTIES LIMITED v GANELLEN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3128

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3128
Court

High Court

The Court found that a binding construction contract existed by virtue of the parties' email exchange on 1 March 2014 (acceptance communicated at 5:57pm) and confirmed by execution and subsequent communications and conduct; the contract incorporated NZS 3910:2003 including an arbitration clause; therefore Ganellen's appearance under protest to jurisdiction could not be dismissed and the proper course was to stay the Court proceeding and refer the parties to arbitration.
13 Mar 2014

SARDAN TRUSTEES LIMITED v MAGSON'S HARDWARE LIMITED [2014] NZHC 460

Citation

[2014] NZHC 460
Court

High Court

The summary judgment application was dismissed because there were genuine disputed questions of fact about the existence and terms of the contract between Sardan (Dansar) and Magsons, and whether Magsons had an arguable defence (including reliance on required Starplus acceptance and Magsons' purchase order process); these disputes could not be resolved on affidavits and therefore the plaintiff failed to show the defendant had no defence.