New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contract variation

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2023

KEEZZ LTD v TE WHATU ORA – HEALTH NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 1360

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1360
Court

High Court

The Services Agreement required written notice from the Steering Committee that all actions necessary to implement measurable annual savings of NZ$25,000,000 had been delivered; no such written notice was given and objective financial analysis did not establish NZ$25,000,000 of measurable savings (WDHB valuation c. NZ$9.4–9.7m); the December 2017 period was an agreed temporary abeyance with limited cover for which WDHB paid; the purported assignment/novation to KNZ was ineffective; WDHB validly terminated for cause on 21 June 2018 (Boyd's abandonment/insolvency and related issues); plaintiffs…
23 Feb 2023

MARSH v GOLDLINE PROPERTIES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 281

Citation

(2023) 23 NZCPR 893
Court

High Court

Section 134(4) must be assessed by reference to the state of affairs at the time the contract was made or brought about; where an agent acquires an interest only after the contract was made and no conflict existed at formation, s134(4)(a) and s134(4)(b) do not authorise cancellation; accordingly the applicant's caveats must be sustained pending substantive proceedings.
18 Aug 2022

TOLSTIKOV v IVANOV [2022] NZHC 2052

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2052
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because the defendant has a reasonably arguable defence that the January 2021 variation may have become conditional on the company obtaining finance (with interest payable in the interim) and there is a genuine issue whether interest was payable by Topcatch Limited or the defendant personally; these factual disputes prevent a finding that the defendant has no defence and therefore preclude summary judgment on the Amended Termination Sum and interest claims.
17 Nov 2021

FOREST HOLDINGS (NZ) LIMITED v SHEUNG [2021] NZCA 608

Citation

[2021] NZCA 608
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the joint venture agreement was capable of being enforced and the defendant was in breach of his obligation to fund the joint venture (pay $1.17M, properly payable to Pristine Timber to be on-paid to Forest Holdings), but declined to grant specific performance because damages were an adequate remedy, specific performance was discretionary and inappropriate where enforcement would require reconstructing and supervising an ongoing business (and where the vehicle company had been removed from the register), so the appeal was dismissed.
25 Sept 2020

MCGRUDDY v SPOTLESS FACILITY SERVICES (NZ) LTD [2020] NZHC 2471

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2471
Court

High Court

The Court upheld the District Court's finding that the appellant, by words and consistent conduct, had represented he would not charge mileage/away allowances for out-of-area work and thereby waived or was estopped from claiming retrospective travel and allowance sums; Spotless relied to its detriment in allocating work and it would be unconscionable to allow the retrospective claim. Although Spotless failed to give the 30 days written notice in form, no compensable loss arose because the contract was a standing offer with no guaranteed work and the appellant suffered no proved expectation lo…
12 Dec 2019

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS v ZAG LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3272

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3272
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the requested particulars of paragraph 5.5 would only produce general, contextual description PwC already knew and would not materially assist, and Zag could not provide particulars of discrete post-contractual variations because its pleaded case was that parties adopted a general collective response rather than agreed discrete variations; therefore no further particulars were ordered and no costs were awarded.
13 May 2019

NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v LIN XUE [2019] NZHC 1042

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1042
Court

High Court

Defendant has no arguable defence: his factual assertions were inadmissible hearsay or non-actionable statements as to future events; the extension of the sunset clause was enforceable (practical benefit and/or valid invocation of the clause's proviso); warranties and best endeavours were not breached in a way that gives rise to a substantial cancellation right; equity should not refuse specific performance. Accordingly specific performance was ordered and defendant must complete by 7 June 2019, costs to plaintiff.
6 Dec 2018

DONE RITE 2017 LTD v WRIGHT [2018] NZHC 3194

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3194
Court

High Court

An interim injunction was justified because there was a serious question to be tried and prima facie evidence of breach of the restraint clause, damages would likely be inadequate given risk to goodwill and market confusion in a small confined area, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.
8 Aug 2017

CHAND v PAL [2017] NZHC 1868

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1868
Court

High Court

Although New Zealand had primary jurisdiction by valid service, Fiji was the forum conveniens because the core transaction, evidence, relevant parties and prior litigation had a stronger real and substantial connection to Fiji and the plaintiffs had not established the alleged New Zealand variations sufficiently on the interlocutory evidence; accordingly the New Zealand proceedings were stayed on terms.
14 Apr 2014

SHEPPARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED v 39 DEGREES SOUTH LIMITED & C CORBETT [2014] NZHC 759

Citation

[2014] NZHC 759
Court

High Court

The summary judgment application is dismissed because there are genuine disputes of fact and credibility about whether a variation to the Dealer Agreement removed the SFT, whether the debt was correctly calculated, and whether cancellation was valid, matters that require oral evidence and a full hearing.