New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitration agreement validity

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2023

SRG GLOBAL REMEDIATION SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2023] NZSC 22

Citation

[2023] NZSC 22
Court

Supreme Court

Leave was refused because the proposed appeals raised no question of general or public importance, turned on findings of fact and the Court of Appeal correctly applied s 79 of the Construction Contracts Act and the Arbitration Act framework (including effect of non‑compliance with NZS 3910:2013 cl 13), such that there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice and no sufficient prospect of success to justify leave.
30 Jun 2022

TAVENDALE & PARTNERS LTD v DINEEN [2022] NZHC 1530

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1530
Court

High Court

Applying a prima facie review the Court found there was at least a prima facie case that the Heads of Agreement dated 26 September 2014 was legally binding and (through cl 7.3 and/or incorporation of the 2014 draft shareholders agreement) contained an arbitration agreement covering disputes about the HOA and the incorporated shareholders agreement including the claims pleaded. The proceeding was therefore stayed and referred to arbitration, with the stay to remain at least until the arbitral tribunal determines its jurisdiction; costs awarded to defendant.
28 Jul 2021

HG METAL MANUFACTURING LTD v NAVARATNAM [2021] NZHC 1920

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1920
Court

High Court

None of the limited statutory grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement in sch 1 art 36 were established: duress was not proven on the contemporaneous evidence; the Singapore High Court decision related to a different (July) guarantee and did not bar arbitration under the September Guarantee; issuance of Singapore proceedings did not amount to repudiation of the arbitration agreement; appointment and procedural complaints did not show a breach of natural justice or invalidate the Award; accordingly the Award was recognised and ordered entered as judgment against Vashiharan Navaratnam.
11 Oct 2012

LEEF & ORS V BIDOIS & ORS HC TAU CIV-2012-470-461

Citation

openlaw-57240e6b_f267_42f3_b7ac_257c2f1a0d3a.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held the August 2011 arbitration agreement was legally valid and the arbitrators did not exceed their jurisdiction in finding Pirirākau held mana whenua for 1840‑1865, but several procedural/natural justice allegations (insufficient disclosure concerning arbitrators' connections to Pirirākau and alleged post‑hearing enquiries without notice) were arguably tenable and must proceed to full hearing; other grounds (invalidity, most public policy/factual sufficiency challenges, non‑mandated representative objection) were struck out.

New Zealand Case Law

SRG GLOBAL REMEDIATION SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2023] NZSC 22

TAVENDALE & PARTNERS LTD v DINEEN [2022] NZHC 1530

HG METAL MANUFACTURING LTD v NAVARATNAM [2021] NZHC 1920

LEEF & ORS V BIDOIS & ORS HC TAU CIV-2012-470-461