New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cancellation of contract

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

TAYLOR v VERNON [2023] NZHC 3445

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3445
Court

High Court

Leave under r 7.77(4) was required because the amended statement of claim relied on a 29 August 2023 cancellation notice which post-dated the original 13 June 2023 statement of claim; notwithstanding that, leave to file the amended statement of claim was granted because the amendment was made early, caused no significant prejudice or delay, and it was appropriate for the real controversy about cancellation under the CCLA to be put before the Court, with issues as to forum, stay, privilege and availability of declaratory relief to be determined at substantive hearings.
4 Aug 2023

NZ SUPERFOOD AND COMPANY LIMITED v AD INTERNATIONAL CO LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2191 [4 August 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2191
Court

High Court

The Court concluded it was strongly arguable AD International was the disclosed principal and thus a creditor; there exist genuine and substantial disputes as to the number of boxes delivered/retained and whether NZ Superfood repudiated the contract (entitling AD International to a refund). Those disputes are sufficiently real to justify setting aside the statutory demand under s 290(4)(a).
7 Jul 2023

RADICS v RADICS [2023] NZHC 1759

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1759
Court

High Court

Given defendant's fundamental breach and impracticability of personal communication, the plaintiff validly cancelled the loan; the Court under s 43 granted relief by ordering the defendant to repay the loan in full and permitted the plaintiff to set off that judgment debt against the repurchase purchase price, and ordered specific performance of the repurchase agreement with the Registrar appointed to complete settlement if necessary.
19 Jun 2023

STOTT v UPLIFTING HOMES LTD [2023] NZHC 1514

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1514
Court

High Court

The court found Uplifting breached implied Building Act warranties by failing to carry out building work in a proper and competent manner, to comply with the building consent, and to complete work within a reasonable time (also breaching the CGA time guarantee). The breaches were substantial entitling plaintiffs to cancel. On cancellation the appropriate compensatory relief under the CCLA was reimbursement of plaintiffs' losses caused by the breaches, discounted to reflect defendant's legitimate contractual expenditure; the court quantified net compensation at NZD 94,911.53 and ordered paymen…
1 Jun 2023

CHENG’S CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD v GENERUS LIVING GROUP LTD [2023] NZHC 1373

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1373
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because there are substantial disputed facts and legally complex issues (effectiveness of waiver, whether Generus was in material breach under cl 13, and whether the settlement notice of two working days was a reasonable period) which make it arguable that Generus did not validly cancel; those issues cannot be resolved on strike out and Cheng's claim for specific performance is therefore not without reasonable prospect of success.
17 May 2023

ECO-SMART HOMES NORTHWEST LIMITED v JENHASH CONTRACTING AND CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1183

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1183
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because there are genuine conflicts of affidavit evidence on whether Jenhash repudiated the contracts and on whether the front-page statement constituted a contractual term or misrepresentation; however, the freezing order was continued because Eco-Smart has a good arguable case and there is a serious risk of dissipation, and the freezing order was varied to cap assets at $400,000 in accordance with r 32.6(2).
21 Dec 2022

XIEYAN MAO v HARGUN SINGH [2022] NZSC 153

Citation

[2022] NZSC 153
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because concurrent factual findings by the High Court and Court of Appeal established that the vendor was not ready, willing and able to give vacant possession and had insisted on settlement notwithstanding the tenancy, so a tender by the purchaser would have been futile; in that factual setting the proposed appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success to justify leave and the Court would not definitively decide wider questions about clause 10 here.
29 Sept 2022

ARMISHAW v HUANG [2022] NZHC 2484

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2484
Court

High Court

Defendants' asserted defences (misrepresentation, mistake, non est factum) are not arguable on the evidence: contemporaneous documents and communications show City Sales acted for the vendors, the clause excluding accessory units was not unusual and could have been satisfied within contractual mechanisms, and defendants were negligent in signing without legal advice; accordingly plaintiff entitled to summary judgment and specific performance. The Court ordered transfer on tailored terms: 20 working days to transfer property exclusive of accessory units with a 10 working day extension if neces…
18 Nov 2021

PROGRESSIVE LIVESTOCK LIMITED v DONALDSON [2021] NZHC 3112

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3112
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of showing the first defendant had no defence; the evidence contained an inconsistency between the signed contracts naming the individual and invoices and other dealings pointing to the company, creating a real issue to be tried.
14 May 2021

MELCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS (NZ) 2012 LTD v HALL [2021] NZCA 184

Citation

(2021) 22 NZCPR 186
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because Melco failed to show a reasonably arguable causal link between Hall's conduct and Melco's inability to fulfil the due diligence condition; there was no evidence an engineer's report could reasonably have been obtained before the 9 January deadline, so Hall was entitled to avoid the agreement and the caveat could not be sustained; Hall had no obligation to notify Melco he would not grant an extension and no enforceable duty of good faith to forgo his commercial interests.