New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Default notices

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2023

RAU PAENGA LIMITED v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2974

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2974
Court

High Court

The Court granted interim relief restraining CPB from requiring the Engineer to suspend or terminate under cl 14.3.3 because RPL demonstrated a reasonable possibility of success on the merits that CPB's default notices were defective and contestable, that suspension/termination would cause harm not adequately reparable by damages (including loss of personnel, warranties, subcontractor continuity and third-party interests), and the balance of harm favored preserving the status quo to allow the contractual dispute resolution (Engineer decision then arbitration) to proceed.
7 Mar 2018

CUSTOM STREET HOTEL LTD v PLUS CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD [2018] NZCA 36

Citation

[2018] NZCA 36
Court

Court of Appeal

Formal suspension by the engineer is not a precondition to a contractor's right to terminate under NZS 3910:2003 cl 14.3.3; the right to suspend and the right to terminate are triggered once the 10-working-day remedy period has expired and suspension is available. Clauses 14.2.3 and 14.2.4 require completion of the works before the engineer's cost certification and any wash-up payment for additional cost of completion can be made. The arbitrator's factual findings that Plus had not repudiated and validly terminated must be respected on appeal.
17 Apr 2014

FM CUSTODIANS LIMITED as the custodial trustee of the AUCKLAND MORTGAGE TRUST v SOS INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 817

Citation

[2014] NZHC 817
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to produce admissible, specific evidence establishing an arguable defence (waiver, estoppel or novation) arising from dealings with Frucom; contemporaneous documents (invoices) were equivocal and plaintiff's contractual clause prevented waiver by delay; the disclaimer signed by third parties did not defeat the claim. Accordingly there was no real question to be tried and summary judgment and possession were ordered.
17 May 2012

MAYDANOZ NZ LTD V POPPELWELL TRADING AS THE POPPELWELL PARTNERSHIP HC AK CIV-2011-404-8144

Citation

openlaw-4eefd3b0_6fe1_49e3_854c_86d067eaf304.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the first default notice was invalid because the lease conferred on the tenant the right to carry on the agreed business and the landlord bore responsibility to arrange and supply insurance‑compatible fire fighting equipment; the tenant was only liable for maintaining such equipment. The second default notice was valid because the outgoings charged were properly and reasonably incurred under the lease and the tenant had contractual obligation to pay reasonable increases; accordingly relief against forfeiture was available but granted conditionally to protect proportionality and…

New Zealand Case Law

RAU PAENGA LIMITED v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2974

CUSTOM STREET HOTEL LTD v PLUS CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD [2018] NZCA 36

FM CUSTODIANS LIMITED as the custodial trustee of the AUCKLAND MORTGAGE TRUST v SOS INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 817

MAYDANOZ NZ LTD V POPPELWELL TRADING AS THE POPPELWELL PARTNERSHIP HC AK CIV-2011-404-8144