New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collateral contract

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2022

CHATHAM HARDWARE LIMITED v CHATHAM ISLAND MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3227

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3227
Court

High Court

The written February 2016 fuel supply agreement governed pricing and expressly allowed CIM to set prices and disclaimed reliance on external arrangements; the spreadsheet did not create a binding collateral guarantee of a 19.3% margin, contemporaneous conduct (CHL repeatedly taking supply and not complaining while in arrears) and objective documentation undermined CHL's account and witnesses' retrospective impressions, and there was insufficient evidence to establish breaches of the Fair Trading Act or Commerce Act. Therefore there was no substantial dispute or valid cross‑claim and the statu…
4 Jul 2022

HERBERT v USAR NAPIER LTD [2022] NZCA 288

Citation

[2022] NZCA 288
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined to admit further evidence because it was not fresh, credible or cogent; the alleged statement was at best a promise of future action and not an actionable pre-contractual misrepresentation; no arguable collateral contract was pleaded or evidenced; appellants failed to show causation or quantifiable loss or mitigation; accordingly summary judgment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
23 Sept 2020

MEREDITH v GLOBAL METAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2482

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2482
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to provide adequate, particularised evidence of a collateral agreement; contemporaneous correspondence undermined the alleged collateral agreement; even if proved, the alleged collateral agreement would be inconsistent with the De Havilland Drive lease's certain one‑year term; summary judgment for the Landlord ordering vacant possession was appropriate.
16 Oct 2017

BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LTD v ANZ BANK NZ LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2520

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2520
Court

High Court

Claims dismissed: the court found no binding agreement to fix margins at 0.70% for five years; the Bank made misleading statements comparing swaps to fixed loans but did not fraudulently conceal facts; crucially the swap and loan written terms (no‑reliance/entire agreement clauses) combined with solicitor's certificates of independent advice severed the proximity and reliance necessary for tort and contractual remedies and broke causation; most FTA claims were time‑barred and the CCCFA/oppression claim failed on the facts and objective commercial standards.
16 Oct 2014

GILL V NEW ZEALAND HOME BONDS LIMITED CA358/2014 [2014] NZCA 506

Citation

[2014] NZCA 506
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court concluded there was no question of law warranting leave because the High Court correctly held the correspondence created a separate collateral agreement between the purchaser and the agent, not terms of the contract with the vendor, and therefore did not negate the contractual position giving rise to NZHBL's claim; accordingly leave was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
6 Jun 2014

NEW ZEALAND HOME BONDS LIMITED v GILL [2014] NZHC 1278

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1278
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions proffered were either misconceived or not capable of bona fide and serious argument and were not of sufficient importance to justify a further appeal; the trial facts and documents established a collateral contract and Sim applied to limit Home Bonds' obligations.
5 Jun 2014

RUDYARD HOLDINGS LIMITED v KIWIBANK LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1253

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1253
Court

High Court

No binding oral or collateral contract was formed at the 19 August 2008 meeting because the parties did not intend to be immediately bound and essential terms and credit approval remained outstanding; the written loan documentation constituted the contract (entire agreement) and the terms sought by plaintiff could not be implied, rectified or enforced by estoppel because reliance was unreasonable in the commercial context and there was no unconscionable conduct, misrepresentation or misleading and deceptive conduct; claim dismissed.
27 Feb 2014

NEW ZEALAND HOME BONDS LIMITED v GILL [2014] NZHC 312

Citation

[2014] NZHC 312
Court

High Court

The side agreement between the purchaser and the agent did not render the sale and purchase agreements conditional as against the vendor; Home Bonds had no notice of the side agreement and the homebond terms (cl 27) required only proof of an expired valid settlement notice to trigger payment absent a limited kind of challenge such as to practical completion or title; the dispute here was a vendor/purchaser dispute and did not oblige Home Bonds to withhold payment or investigate further. Accordingly Home Bonds was entitled to recover the $86,240 it paid together with interest and costs.
4 Apr 2012

RAHOPARA FARMS LIMITED V FIONA ANNE TAYLOR HC AK CIV-2011-404-4857

Citation

openlaw-f40e28d4_305d_46b0_b8df_64d8fe6a98e4.pdf
Court

High Court

The written sale agreement including clause 6.2(5) unambiguously warranted that any required permits/consents/CCCs existed and were complied with; the defendant's asserted oral 'as is, where is' term contradicted the written contract and lacked sufficient contemporaneous or unequivocal evidence to establish a collateral contract or estoppel; accordingly the defendant has no arguable defence to liability and summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability is appropriate, with a trial ordered for quantum.
1 Mar 2011

HAYMAN V NZ NEW OAK LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-4143

Citation

openlaw-7587c333_8279_410e_9202_2f3b32e63ede.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants' counterclaim has no real prospect of success: clause 11.1 precludes landlord liability absent written notice; clause 40.1 excludes warranties about suitability and any collateral promise would have to be supplemental and proved by strong, unequivocal evidence which is absent; defendants failed the heavy evidential burden and their conduct undermines the alleged warranty; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and should not be stayed.