New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contractual remedies

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2021

SINGH v MAO [2021] NZHC 1959

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1959
Court

High Court

The contract, by its uncompleted tenancy fields, required the vendor to deliver vacant possession under clause 3.1. The vendor was not in all material respects ready, willing and able to settle in accordance with clauses 3 and 10 because she insisted on settlement only if the purchaser took title subject to the tenancy and bore tenants' costs; her words and conduct made tender futile. Accordingly she was not entitled to serve a valid settlement notice under clause 11 and could not validly cancel. The agreement therefore remained on foot and specific performance was ordered, with price adjuste…
16 Jul 2019

PAROS PROPERTY TRUST LTD v TIMOTHY [2019] NZHC 1657

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1657
Court

High Court

The application for declarations was dismissed because a necessary co-lessee (Ms Shaw) was not joined or served and material factual disputes over the construction and performance of clause 23 (including who selected the valuer and whether valid remittance was made) could not be resolved on the material before the court; accordingly the court refused declaratory relief and dismissed the originating application.
26 Jun 2019

YU & ANOR v BRADLEY & ANOR [2019] NZHC 1455

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1455
Court

High Court

Costs of the plaintiffs' summary judgment application are to be reserved until the substantive proceeding is finally determined because this case is not exceptional; however the defendants are entitled to scale (2B) costs for the plaintiffs' unsuccessful application for leave to appeal.
18 Dec 2018

LOOKMAN v DESIGN ELECTRONICS LTD [2018] NZHC 3396

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3396
Court

High Court

Partial summary judgment: defendants must provide the Trust with access to Design Electronics' electronic accounting system and records from 1 August 2017 and comply with clause 10 obligations (monthly meetings and provision of specified information for the relevant period); the claim for a personal guarantee under clause 6 is uncertain and cannot be resolved on summary judgment and requires trial.
25 Oct 2017

BSC LIMITED v SARGON CAPITAL PTY LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2609

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2609
Court

High Court

The Judge exercised discretion to reserve costs on the discontinued summary judgment application because it was premature to fix costs before the final determination: BSC was entitled to test Sargon's fraud allegations in interlocutory proceedings and its withdrawal was responsible; accordingly costs are reserved to be decided at the final hearing.
9 Sept 2016

HO KOK SUN AND ORS v PENINSULA ROAD LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZCA 427

Citation

(2016) 18 NZCPR 319
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the ASPs, read in context with the Draft Outline Plans, resource consents and ASP provisions (notably cl 5.7), imposed a qualified positive obligation on the vendors to complete Stages 2 and 3; that obligation was essential to purchasers; by receivership, asset split and subsequent sale the vendors were incapable of procuring completion such that breach was inevitable and amounted to repudiation; purchasers validly cancelled and are entitled to return of deposits.
18 Aug 2016

KOURA MINING LTD v GEOTECH LTD [2016] NZHC 1926

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1926
Court

High Court

The Court concluded there was no arguable, genuine and substantial dispute that the sums in the statutory demand were due and owing: the parties' contemporaneous email established payments were sync'd to the 1st of the month so December invoices were due; Geotech's disabling of equipment was not repudiation as it offered reinstatement on payment; the upfront payment could not be applied to defeat the demand; alleged non‑supply was minor and speculative; Koura failed to mitigate, so the statutory demand was not set aside.
24 Mar 2016

CLODE & ANOR v SULLIVAN FAMILY TRUST NO 1 & ORS [2016] NZHC 529

Citation

[2016] NZHC 529
Court

High Court

Leave to amend was granted because on balance the interests of justice required the new cause of action to be pleaded, the court would not prejudge the merits of rectification on a short hearing, the applicant's delay was reasonably explained, and any prejudice to defendants could be managed by tightening and adjusting the trial timetable and imposing strict filing deadlines.
1 Apr 2015

VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 33

Citation

[2015] NZSC 33
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application is dismissed; the Supreme Court reissued its substantive judgment correcting references to an alleged concession but upheld the High Court's conclusion that the purchasers were entitled to cancel because Station failed to perform essential contractual obligations (including arranging operation of the development as serviced apartments under a management agreement together with the furniture package and purchasers' fee), and Station's late attempt to relitigate that it only had an option to provide a management agreement was not a proper basis to recall the judgment and…
23 May 2014

S H KIM v H S LEE [2014] NZHC 1032

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1032
Court

High Court

The Court found the March 27, 2013 document (clause 3) gave Mr Kim an immediate right to register a mortgage at any time after two months if the respondent's one‑third share remained unpaid, that there was valuable consideration in the form of Mr Lee's promise to contribute to repayment, and that the promise related to the respondent's home in which he held a registrable interest; accordingly there was an arguable equitable mortgageable interest sufficient to sustain the caveat, but the caveat was sustained subject to conditions requiring prompt enforcement proceedings.