New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of settlement interpretation

Legal area

Court

12 May 2020

DAVID WILLIAM PHILLIPS v NGATI TAMA CUSTODIAN TRUSTEE LIMITED [2020] NZSC 46 [12 May 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZSC 46
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal raised only disputed factual applications of settled principles of contract interpretation and summary judgment rather than questions of general or public importance or an appearance of miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the deed covered the disputed IP claims and that summary judgment was appropriate was not shown to be plainly wrong.
2 Mar 2018

NGATI TAMA CUSTODIAN TRUSTEE LTD v PHILLIPS [2018] NZHC 304

Citation

[2018] NZHC 304
Court

High Court

The deed settled issues that were still live at the date of settlement as informed by Venning J's judgment; ownership of the business systems IP had been sold to KGB in September 2010, that sale was known to the parties and had not been set aside, and Venning J had not determined ownership of those business systems IP, so those assets were not within the ambit of the deed and the notices did not breach the settlement; summary judgment was therefore dismissed and the interim injunction discharged.
10 May 2013

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V KEVIN JOHN WHITLEY HC AK CIV-2011-404-007335

Citation

openlaw-b20b1936_0f5a_48cd_a953_34beeaa6808e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under r 4.52 to substitute Mr Whitley and Mr Noble as plaintiffs notwithstanding that judgment had already been entered; the deed of assignment, once operative on payment, conveyed all rights to the assignees such that substitution was necessary and desirable to enable them to enforce the judgment/security, and accordingly the order should be made.
2 Jul 2008

PARORE BOAT CHARTERS LTD V K TRAVERS AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-001294

Citation

openlaw-4d483ec0_ef9a_40ef_8dcf_8393d94a2def.pdf
Court

High Court

Notice of the hearing was validly served at the defendant's address for service and the summary judgment was regularly obtained; on interpretation of the deed of settlement the obligation to pay $241,022.50 was due on 20 December 2007 with time being of the essence and defendants were jointly and severally liable, so the first defendant had no substantial defence and the application to set aside the judgment fails.
13 Jun 2003

COMPCORP LIMITED V FORCE ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE LIMITED CA CA212/02

Citation

openlaw-14ac4e73_8bbb_451b_a5ed_b324e0a2acfb.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 3.1.4 was a provision identifying the time for payment, not a condition precedent; an implied term requiring payment when Force came into funds (eg recapitalisation) is necessary for business efficacy so summary judgment was entered for $1,577,000 plus interest; clause 3.3 is a truly conditional bonus and summary judgment on the $500,000 claim was refused.

New Zealand Case Law

DAVID WILLIAM PHILLIPS v NGATI TAMA CUSTODIAN TRUSTEE LIMITED [2020] NZSC 46 [12 May 2020]

NGATI TAMA CUSTODIAN TRUSTEE LTD v PHILLIPS [2018] NZHC 304

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V KEVIN JOHN WHITLEY HC AK CIV-2011-404-007335

PARORE BOAT CHARTERS LTD V K TRAVERS AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-001294

COMPCORP LIMITED V FORCE ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE LIMITED CA CA212/02