New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Commission

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2021

TOURISM HOLDINGS LIMITED v A LABOUR INSPECTOR OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2021] NZSC 157

Citation

[2021] NZSC 157
Court

Supreme Court

For the s 8(2) calculation 'regular part' must be assessed against a four-week standard period; commissions that are of a kind made regularly when assessed over a four-week period are included in the s 8(2) numerator (gross earnings) and are not excluded by s 8(1)(c)(i). Commission allocation is by accrual to the period when the activity was sold and, for third-party activities, taken, not by payment date or necessarily post-debrief payment; accordingly the Court amended the Court of Appeal's answer to state the four-week standard and dismissed the appeal otherwise.
28 Sept 2021

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v SOFT TECHNOLOGY JR LTD [2021] NZHC 2538

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2538
Court

High Court

The agency agreement's wide definition of 'rent' includes turnover rent; the parties' memorandum, correspondence and the ATEED lease show a conditional second lease existed contemporaneously with the ATEED lease such that the agent's introduction falls within the contract's sunset provisions; clause 13 alternatively entitles the agent to commission on additional space; Jones Lang's failure to deliver a signed copy was inadvertent and on the facts recovery of the full commission (plus GST and contractual interest) is fair and reasonable under s126, so relief reducing or denying commission is n…
18 Jan 2021

A LABOUR INSPECTOR OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT v TOURISM HOLDINGS LIMITED [2021] NZCA 1

Citation

[2021] ERNZ 1
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that 'a regular part of the employee's pay' in s 8(1)(c)(i) means payments that are either substantively regular (systematic and governed by rules) or temporally regular (habitual or recurring in time). s 8(2) is an alternative formula that applies where there is no ordinary working week and does not reintroduce the concept of pay 'for an ordinary working week' when deciding what is 'regular'. Commission payable in lump sums post‑tour can be a regular part of pay because the employment contract and the pattern of tours make such payments systematic and habitual; the post‑tour r…
12 Jun 2020

MONOCRANE (2010) LTD v COOPER & CO REAL ESTATE LTD [2020] NZHC 1319

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1319
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were not awarded because the indemnity clause did not plainly and unambiguously establish entitlement to solicitor/client costs for the steps taken and, critically, the respondent failed to provide invoices or itemisation so the court could not be satisfied the claimed indemnity costs were reasonably incurred; instead the court awarded scale costs on a 2B basis reduced by 20% plus disbursements because respondent was largely successful on liability though it overstated the demand quantum.
13 Aug 2019

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v SOFT TECHNOLOGY JR LTD [2019] NZHC 1965

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1965
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for summary judgment was refused because Soft Tech did not satisfactorily explain its delay, issues of material fact existed (notably the alleged informal arrangement over Lot 10 and the factual basis for treating ATEED as an associate), and Soft Tech failed to demonstrate sufficiently strong preliminary merits to justify depriving JLL of discovery and a full hearing; summary disposal was therefore inappropriate.
14 Apr 2015

COAST TO COAST LTD v SMYTH [2015] NZHC 687

Citation

[2015] NZHC 687
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are tenable defences and genuine factual disputes: evidence supports a reasonable claim that the trustees relied on a local seven day protocol and on representations by the incoming agent which may found an estoppel or imply a contractual variation; the application raised significant issues about the protocol's existence, scope and effect and the potential for double liability that require resolution at trial or with all parties joined, so there was a real question to be tried.
25 Nov 2013

SKIDMORE v PYE [2013] NZHC 3171

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3171
Court

High Court

The 21 September 2011 email was properly construed as the plaintiff absorbing legal fees by reducing the overall commission entitlement rather than incurring an obligation to pay or reimburse cash; the defendant's conduct (accepting drawdown and paying tranches without deduction or request) corroborates that construction; therefore the defendant had no present contractual right to $71,831.73 under contract 1 and the two contracts were not sufficiently interdependent to permit equitable set-off under the principles in Grant v NZMC Ltd, entitling summary judgment for the plaintiff.
2 Apr 2012

CHRISTINA CASARES V OKTOBOR GROUP LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-2140

Citation

openlaw-c49f3669_9796_48cf_b534_d6ab722b6ac9.pdf
Court

High Court

There were no genuine disputes of material fact: the written Freelance Agreement governed the parties' bargain, plaintiff was paid for services that included bringing in new business, no agreement to pay commission or introduction fee was established, and payments under the contract precluded a restitutionary quantum meruit remedy; summary judgment dismissing the claim was therefore appropriate.
15 Sept 2010

BRENT ADAIR MATHEWS V CP REALTY (PN) LIMITED HC PMN CIV 2010-454-276

Citation

openlaw-9b4d654d_6e6b_4514_a02c_f8fa8bec2863.pdf
Court

High Court

The agent was instrumental in securing the Cripps offer which directly led to the parties' s21 settlement; a s21 settlement can constitute a sale for commission purposes; Mathews, having warranted he had authority of all vendors, is liable for the commission calculated on the total consideration (including stock).
22 Jul 2009

HERON'S FLIGHT LIMITED V NZ PROPERTIES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-002101

Citation

openlaw-b3b1bf64_aeca_4596_9874_f380d1d3fc79.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that by her conduct (silence at the January meeting, presence at signing, permitting Lowndes to draft and advance the agreement) the purchaser clothed Mr Lowndes with ostensible authority to act as her legal advisor and to confirm satisfaction of the due diligence condition; his notification that the condition was satisfied bound the parties, the contracts became unconditional and the agent's commission was earned.