New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Distribution agreement

Legal area

Court

17 Aug 2023

100 INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v WALKER AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 2227

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2227
Court

High Court

The Court refused to restrain Minters because there was no real likelihood they would be required to defend their own advice or give contentious evidence and no convincing demonstration that Minters held confidential information creating a real risk of disclosure; on strike-out applications the Court declined to strike out the principal causes of action against LPF and SPF (save for specific discrete pleaded particulars found untenable) and ordered amendments and particulars, directing a further amended statement of claim and making costs orders as set out in the judgment.
6 Nov 2019

OXYGEN AIR LIMITED v LG ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2786

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2786
Court

High Court

Termination occurred by Oxygen's exercise of its unilateral right under Distribution Agreement cl 5.1c(iii) by notice dated 17 April 2018 (effective 18 June 2018), not by earlier alleged breach; because termination was by cl 5.1c(iii) Oxygen was not entitled to compensation under cl 6.3; no enforceable solar distributorship existed or was incorporated; Oxygen failed to establish any contractual breaches by LG giving rise to valid set-off or counterclaim; LG's standard trading terms (reservation of title and trust over sale proceeds) applied; LG entitled to judgment on counterclaim for unpaid…
8 Aug 2014

BDM GRANGE LIMITED v TRIMEX PTY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1865

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1865
Court

High Court

Although the defendant's statutory demand was not prosecuted improperly and there was a genuine dispute about the long-running commercial relationship, once evidence established a termination payment claim exceeding the debt the defendant properly withdrew the demand; the initiating party that then reverts to formal proceedings should bear some consequence, so costs are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B scale with disbursements, but claimed Mr Chapman fees are not allowed now.
11 Apr 2006

LEISUREWORLD LIMITED V CLIVE GRAHAM STEVENS AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001973

Citation

openlaw-4f080220_23c7_44b5_a349_05777aab6e67.pdf
Court

High Court

On the material before the court the plaintiff demonstrated a seriously arguable claim that the first and third defendants breached contractual restraints and the distribution agreement and that misleading statements were made; damages would be inadequate and the balance of convenience favoured granting interim injunctive relief against the first and third defendants (with the order against the fourth defendant held over).

New Zealand Case Law

100 INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v WALKER AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 2227

OXYGEN AIR LIMITED v LG ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2786

BDM GRANGE LIMITED v TRIMEX PTY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1865

LEISUREWORLD LIMITED V CLIVE GRAHAM STEVENS AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001973