New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Authority of agent

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2020

AUTOTERMINAL NEW ZEALAND LTD v IBC JAPAN LTD [2020] NZHC 2692

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2692
Court

High Court

Interrogatories that effectively ask the court to decide a question of law (whether the alleged agent's conduct binds the company) or that seek the agent's subjective belief are impermissible and need not be answered; further, where answers are not necessary because the matters can be proved at trial or the information is not within the defendant's available knowledge, the court will exercise its discretion to refuse to order answers. Accordingly ATNZ's application for orders compelling answers was dismissed.
5 Mar 2018

GUIRONG WEN v KOK ANN NGOI [2018] NZSC 18

Citation

[2018] NZSC 18
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues identified arose from peculiar and heavily disputed factual circumstances that were determinative of agent authority and contract formation, and therefore did not raise questions of public or general importance nor disclose a miscarriage of justice.
1 Dec 2014

NGOI v WEN [2014] NZHC 3027

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3027
Court

High Court

Because there were genuine, material disputes of fact about whether the vendor understood she was accepting the purchaser's offer and whether the agent had authority to bind the vendor to price, the Court could not be satisfied the defendant had no reasonably arguable defence; summary judgment for specific performance was therefore refused.
8 Jun 2012

THE ROOFING SPECIALISTS LTD V BLM ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD HC HAM CIV-2012-419-359

Citation

openlaw-cabe348d_ded1_4d25_ae30_b2cce25585cb.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce Mr Butterfield's affidavit was refused because the evidence was not fresh, the circumstances were not exceptional or compelling, Mr Butterfield was an obvious witness who could have been called at trial, and the affidavit is not sufficiently cogent or credible to overturn the trial judge's finding on authority.
13 Jul 2009

BANKFIELD FARM LIMITED V HART AND ORS CA CA343/2008

Citation

openlaw-5f6e835c_3b69_4a5c_8d92_141cc641eb64.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held Mr Belcher had actual authority to negotiate and conclude the settlement on Bankfield's behalf based on express instructions to 'reach settlement' dated 17 July 2007 and beneficiaries' directions; alternatively he had implied authority as counsel to compromise the litigation and consequent ostensible authority as against Harvest Trust; his signed fax constituted a sufficient memorandum under the Contracts Enforcement Act 1956 s2, therefore the settlement was binding and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Nov 2008

SCI FINANCE LIMITED V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV2007-404-5327

Citation

openlaw-0b16ff81_006c_44a8_a6de_8e550d41f764.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant established by uncontradicted affidavit and documentary evidence that the purported signatory (Mr Ranapia) had no authority to bind the company; the plaintiff filed no credible opposing evidence; therefore on the balance of probabilities none of the plaintiff's causes of action could succeed and summary judgment dismissing the claim was warranted.
7 Jul 2008

WHARE CORPORATION LIMITED V BODY CORPORATE 206552 HC AK CIV 2007-404-006500

Citation

openlaw-b26f1e69_02f1_408e_bb99_8b3c7f6d73e8.pdf
Court

High Court

No common law duty of care existed requiring the Body Corporate to ensure the s 36 certificate was correct beyond the statutory scope; s 36 did not require disclosure of the matters sought by the appellant except the general nature of any act incurring liability (here only the fact that legal advice was sought and any liability would be limited to those costs); statements by the building manager were outside the Body Corporate's authority and did not expose the Body Corporate to liability under the Fair Trading Act; appeal dismissed.
11 Dec 2007

SMADA GROUP LIMITED AND ANOR V MIRO FARMS LIMITED CA CA189/06

Citation

openlaw-c1e5097c_5b89_4949_b373_40f87cec1ac1.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to displace the ordinary inference in land sale negotiations that the parties intended to be bound only upon execution of the altered written agreement by both vendor and purchaser; Smada's signing alone created an offer requiring acceptance by Miro, which did not occur, so no binding contract arose.