New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contractual remedies act

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2018

PURE ELITE HOLDINGS LIMITED v PEH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 844

Citation

[2018] NZHC 844
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the defendant's applications for further particulars because the plaintiffs' pleading and their written responses provided sufficient fair notice of the claim; the additional details sought (specifics of Enertech's 'internal issues', granular particulars of 'significant resources' committed in Jan–Mar 2015, and the underlying computations/comparators for the NZ$108,000,000 valuation) were evidential matters properly addressed by disclosure and expert evidence rather than particulars at the pleading stage; accordingly the particulars requests were unnecessary and refused, a…
26 May 2017

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LIMITED v WETA ESTATE LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1111

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1111
Court

High Court

The Court applied a prima facie test and found that clause 25.7 constituted an arbitration agreement that remained prima facie operative because the procedural cancellation route in clause 25 was not followed; accordingly the Court stayed the fourth and fifth causes of action and referred those disputes to arbitration, ordered the plaintiffs to provide security for costs of NZD 12,800 as a first tranche within 10 working days, stayed the proceeding pending provision of that security, and dismissed the defendants' strike out application.
2 Dec 2013

DISTRIBUTION CONTROL LIMITED v ASB BANK LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3168

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3168
Court

High Court

The Court found the pleadings, while scattered, contained sufficient particulars to permit the claims to proceed to trial; ASB had conducted reasonable searches and no further discovery was ordered; limitation and liability issues (including whether s 28 or equitable fraud exceptions apply) required full trial fact-finding and could not be resolved on strike-out or particulars applications; accordingly all of ASB's applications failed and the matter is to proceed to trial with costs to lie where they fall.
24 May 2013

BIN ZHANG v ZHIHUA ZHAO [2013] NZHC 1205

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1205
Court

High Court

The April 11 2012 agreement was capable of creating an equitable interest enforceable by specific performance and the applicant demonstrated an arguable caveatable interest; the purported cancellation of 25 June 2012 was not effective because the respondent's agent had affirmed the contract and waived timing and amount requirements, so the caveat should not lapse pending the applicant commencing and prosecuting proceedings for specific performance within a short timeframe.
31 Jul 2012

KRISHNAYYA v FOREST OWNER MARKETING SERVICES LIMITED HC NAP CIV 2011-441-017

Citation

openlaw-0c3349a8_8d61_499a_aef1_8a1af2c22951.pdf
Court

High Court

The fixture was vacated and the statement of claim amended because the plaintiff's documented severe depression prevented him giving instructions and the interests of justice favoured adjournment; leave to amend was granted because the defendant could not show prejudice from the adjournment; costs were awarded to the defendant on a 2B basis and made payable within two weeks with authority to apply the security for costs if unpaid.
29 Mar 2011

PACIFIC TRAWLING LTD V P COLEMAN AS ADMINISTRATOR OF E&B MANAGEMENT LTD HC AK CIV 2011-404-1434

Citation

openlaw-ba2ef20e_8650_486c_abde_3a0af944c4f7.pdf
Court

High Court

No order for possession or leave was made; the court refused to grant relief at this time because the vessel represented substantial equity for creditors, the applicant's losses appeared covered by that equity, cancellation would likely produce a windfall requiring relief to the company, and the application would be rendered moot or materially affected by the imminent decision on liquidation and the watershed meeting; matter is adjourned pending those developments.
20 Aug 2010

STALLION PLASTICS LIMITED V SCRAP METAL RECYCLERS (WAIKATO) LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2009-470-863

Citation

openlaw-8be4cc7d_bba4_438f_ab23_782da75ab245.pdf
Court

High Court

The summary judgment application was dismissed because the defendant raised arguable defences based on alleged misrepresentations and factual conflicts that could not be properly resolved on summary judgment; the entire agreement clause was not a conclusive answer and clause 10.3 did not entitle the defendant to solicitor and client costs; costs on the application are reserved.
6 Aug 2010

LINDALE KIDS LIMITED V LINDALE INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-899

Citation

openlaw-592cda5d_3fde_497d_a90f_9bc6e2184447.pdf
Court

High Court

The statutory demands were set aside because, although the applicants did not establish a sufficiently arguable dispute solely as to the quantum of rent, they had established reasonably arguable counterclaims/cross demands predating the demands which warranted setting aside under s 290(4)(b); lease clauses excluding setoff did not preclude reliance on s 290 counterclaims and the court should not refuse relief in its residual discretion.
6 Nov 2009

TWISS V CANNELL & ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-000584

Citation

openlaw-36dbb160_4fec_45bb_8dd5_0a6c3fcb0e2e.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because the defendants demonstrated reasonably arguable defences including misrepresentation and potential Fair Trading Act claims and because clause 6.6 could not be interpreted to oust the court's equitable discretion to refuse specific performance; therefore the matter must proceed to substantive hearing and directions via a case management conference.
3 Jul 2009

KINLOCH GOLF RESORT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V DA KNIGHT AND ORS HC NAP CIV-2008-441-670

Citation

openlaw-90bc229b_b201_4b5f_ae15_00560de6f083.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because the plaintiff failed to show its case was unanswerable: there are reasonably arguable defences based on alleged misleading representations and lack of reasonable grounds to expect completion of the development, factual matters requiring full trial (including interpretation of marketing material, financial evidence and effect of exclusion clauses).