New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contra proferentem

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2023

CATHERWOOD v ASTERON LIFE LIMITED [2023] NZCA 357

Citation

[2023] NZCA 357
Court

Court of Appeal

The phrase 'regardless of any available treatment' is ambiguous; on objective construction and commercial common sense, the definition of 'terminal illness' in the SmartLife policy must be read to permit consideration of available treatment when assessing life expectancy, and on that reading the insured did not meet the terminal illness threshold; the insurer did not breach the policy and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Aug 2023

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUTUAL FUNDS TRUSTEE LIMITED v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2023] NZSC 97

Citation

[2023] NZSC 97
Court

Supreme Court

The exclusion in Exclusion 13(a), read in its textual context and construed strictly as an insurance exclusion, excludes only liability causally connected to weathertightness; mixed claims are divisible and RiskPool remained liable for the separable portion of the settlement attributable solely to non-weathertightness defects. The Wayne Tank concurrent-cause principle did not require exclusion of the separable non-weathertightness liability here.
8 Dec 2022

CATHERWOOD v ASTERON LIFE LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3296

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3296
Court

High Court

The Court held that the policy definition of "terminal illness" is to be construed to take into account the effect of available medical treatment on life expectancy; accordingly Asteron correctly declined the terminal illness claim and did not breach the policy.
25 Mar 2022

LE COIFFEUR LIMITED v CHANNER [2022] NZHC 576

Citation

[2022] NZHC 576
Court

High Court

The phrase "current GV/RV" in the lease is the rating valuation recorded on the District Valuation Roll as updated by QV (the $480,000 figure, at least as recorded from 1 February 2021); therefore the tenant did not validly exercise the option at $325,000 and the claim for specific performance (and damages in the alternative) is dismissed.
20 Sept 2019

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUTUAL FUNDS TRUSTEE LIMITED v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZCA 444

Citation

[2019] NZCA 444
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the scope and effect of exclusion cl 13(a) could not be resolved on strike out; the clause's drafting and context rendered its application unclear and determination requires extrinsic and factual evidence at trial, so it was inappropriate to strike out the Council's claim.
19 Jun 2019

M2 NZ LIMITED v THE PHONE COMPANY LIMITED [2019] NZCA 230

Citation

[2019] NZCA 230
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause (f) excludes net receipts covered by clause (e) and by wholesale/licensing arrangements and the additional 1% applies to net receipts from M2 mobile phone services customers generally; however where customers were procured by M2 contractors, dealers or agents in New Zealand the 1% applies only when the Vodafone NZ mobile network is used to deliver the mobile services for which the net receipts are received; this interpretation gives effect to the comma placement, the exclusions, the commercial context and avoids uncommercial open‑ended obligations — appeal allowed.
22 Aug 2018

THE PHONE COMPANY LTD v M2 NZ LTD [2018] NZHC 2167

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2167
Court

High Court

The court preferred the literal construction: the comma before 'including' indicates clause (f) applies to Net Receipts from all mobile phone services customers of M2 regardless of the network used to deliver services; accordingly the preliminary question is answered in favour of The Phone Company Limited.
29 Mar 2018

ELITE UNDERLAY LTD v ECO RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD [2018] NZHC 571

Citation

[2018] NZHC 571
Court

High Court

Read as a whole, the Management Agreement created reciprocal obligations intended to operate while the business was run as a going concern and included a termination clause that did not permit respondent to unilaterally cease production to defeat Elite's entitlement to management fees; respondent's unilateral cessation of production was a breach and Elite is entitled to expectation damages, with quantum remitted for further evidence.
20 Sept 2017

HULBERT DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v TAIRUA MARINE LIMITED [2017] NZCA 418 [20 September 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZCA 418
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that 'the marina facility' in the exit agreement referred to the specific marina project contemplated when the agreement was made (a marina of scale comparable to the plans then being worked on, circa 200+ berths); the 95‑berth marina that was ultimately completed was not that marina and therefore did not trigger TML's contractual obligation to pay $250,000, so there was no breach and no relief under s 9.
22 Aug 2017

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD v NEWFOUNDWORLD SITE 2 (HOTEL) LTD [2017] NZHC 2016

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2016
Court

High Court

Clause 11.2 is ambiguous on whether it covers solicitor-client costs because it indemnifies for costs related to breach but then excludes consequential or indirect costs; applying contra proferentem against the drafter (Air NZ) the court held solicitor-client costs claimed are consequential/indirect and excluded from the contractual indemnity. Costs were awarded under the High Court Rules on a 2B basis ($50,454) with a 25% uplift ($12,613.50) because Newfoundworld unreasonably refused a settlement offer, yielding a costs award of $63,067.50; unchallenged disbursements of $13,267.10 were also…