New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contract construction

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2018

LHL LEASING SOLUTIONS LTD v PINTO LTD [2018] NZHC 1387

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1387
Court

High Court

The lease did not operate so as to impose clause 10 liquidated damages on Pinto because clause 1 (absence of a signed Hirer) limited the former lessee's obligations to those specified and the novation only required Pinto to assume those obligations; further, Pinto did not 'fail' to deliver up equipment because the parties effected mutual arrangements and Pinto facilitated recovery, so liquidated damages under clause 10 were not payable.
7 Mar 2018

SMITH ELEMENTS & CONTROLS LTD v EPI GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 336

Citation

[2018] NZHC 336
Court

High Court

The Court declined to grant further or substitute interim relief and maintained the existing consent interim/interim orders because the parties had not shown compelling reasons to displace the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction, both parties delayed appointment of an arbitrator (and did not seek an emergency arbitrator), and the dispute should be determined by the arbitrator; accordingly Whata J's interim/interim measures remain in place pending arbitration or further order.
10 Oct 2017

WARD EQUIPMENT LIMITED v PRESTON [2017] NZCA 444

Citation

[2017] NZCA 444
Court

Court of Appeal

On ordinary contractual construction the licence agreement, which contained detailed bilateral termination provisions and a natural life tied to patent rights, did not allow either party to terminate at will on reasonable notice; there is no presumption favouring such an implied term in commercial contracts and the High Court declaration was set aside.
31 May 2017

COMMERCE COMMISSION v HARMONEY LTD [2017] NZHC 1167

Citation

(2017) 14 TCLR 572
Court

High Court

The Court held that the Commission is entitled to use the case stated procedure under s100A as imported by s113(g) CCCFA to obtain determinations on questions of law arising in its matters; questions 1 (which documents comprise the credit contract), 3 (which entity is creditor) and 4 (whether the platform fee is a credit fee) are legally identifiable questions appropriate for a case stated (questions 3 and 4 to be prefaced 'on the basis of the documents and the factual summary'); questions 2 (whether the transaction is in substance a credit contract under s7(2)) and 5 (whether the platform fe…
2 May 2017

WILACI PTY LIMITED v TORCHLIGHT FUND NO 1 LP (IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2017] NZCA 152 _x000b_

Citation

[2017] 3 NZLR 293
Court

Court of Appeal

The late payment fee was a secondary obligation triggered by default but, applying Cavendish and Paciocco, it was not out of proportion to Wilaci's legitimate commercial interests measured in the commercial context and on the parties' own assessment of the value of the facility, and therefore was not an unenforceable penalty.
19 Oct 2015

TORCHLIGHT FUND NO.1 LP (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v JOHNSTONE & ORS [2015] NZHC 2559

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2559
Court

High Court

The Late Payment fee was imposed in terrorem and constituted a collateral penal stipulation that was extravagant and out of proportion to the loss likely to be caused by late repayment (limited to lender's cost of funds/interest exposure), therefore the clause was an unenforceable penalty; accordingly late payment charges were struck down but the primary facility fee and contractual interest and receivers' costs under the indemnity were recoverable.
13 Mar 2015

CONWAY v BURDON [2015] NZHC 479

Citation

[2015] NZHC 479
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because there were genuine and material disputes as to the construction and duration of the maintenance obligation, the correct quantum of arrears given rebateable direct payments and prior solicitor communications, and the effect and operation (including potential retrospective effect) of the clause 8 review mechanism; those disputes meant the defendant had arguable defenses and the claim could not be finally determined on summary judgment.
26 Feb 2014

RESOURCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO S.A. [2014] NZHC 292

Citation

[2014] NZHC 292
Court

High Court

Clause 16.2 of the bill of lading unambiguously earned freight on receipt of the goods and expressly precluded set-off; Resources NZ failed to establish a genuine and substantial dispute about the debt or an arguable counterclaim or equitable set-off that would impeach MSC's title to the freight; commercial parties are to be held to their bargain and the statutory demand must not be set aside; application dismissed and time to comply extended.
15 Apr 2013

WILTSHIRE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V BLAKE AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2012-409-863

Citation

openlaw-4bf3f91b_b315_4184_8b95_11246fae35e3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that clauses 1 and 2 created a lifetime option in favour of the grantee that precluded grantors selling to third parties during their lifetimes except where the grantor validly invited the grantee under clause 3(B) and the grantee failed to exercise within the prescribed period; the defendants' declaratory summary judgment claim was dismissed. The claim that the options were an unlawful restraint on alienation could not be resolved on summary judgment and was reserved for substantive hearing. The Court approved limited machinery amendments to clarify exercise after death of the…
18 Mar 2013

KRISHNAYYA V FOREST OWNER MARKETING SERVICES LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2011-441-000017

Citation

openlaw-40a15ff6_00bc_40c2_abfd_68762209de84.pdf
Court

High Court

The manager's projections were qualified forecasts and not guarantees; the defendant complied with contractual standards and reporting obligations, plaintiff was not reasonably induced by any misrepresentation, plaintiff's cancellation was unjustified, and defendant succeeded on its counterclaim for losses caused by unlawful termination.