New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estoppel by convention

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2023

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST AND OTHERS v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 2523

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2523
Court

High Court

The Court held there is a serious question to be tried on the breach of contract claim because clause 8.2 cannot be taken as an unfettered absolute termination right without consideration of the default rule/Braganza approach or an implied obligation to act reasonably; BNZ's procedural and substantive justification for terminating all Gloriavale accounts must be determined at trial; the balance of convenience and overall justice require continuation of the interim injunction preventing BNZ from closing the listed accounts pending final determination.
6 Apr 2023

RYAN v LOBB [2023] NZHC 689

Citation

[2023] NZHC 689
Court

High Court

Clause 2.5(3) must be read and applied primarily by reference to the settlors' financial contributions as recorded in the contemporaneous trust deeds and accounts (including gifts/forgiveness of debt); subjective or unilateral post‑settlement claims (labour, project management, payments via LML, GST refunds) do not alter entitlement under that clause. The Court may exercise the trustees' mandatory resettlement power where no suitable trustees exist and implement resettlement. Applying those principles, assets (other than watches/jewellery and subject to valuation adjustments for the antique f…
21 Nov 2022

DANGEROUS GOODS COMPLIANCE LIMITED v FARQUHAR LELEAN HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZHC 3041

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3041
Court

High Court

On objective construction the SPA turnover warranty related to the business as represented for sale (the certification/auditing business and limited identified ancillary items — 'DGC domain'); FY2019 turnover included $808,652 of revenues from activities outside DGC's domain (principally ERL/reg 4.5 training and certain product sales), so the warranty was breached; defendants (Old DGC and its directors) were liable as covenantors under the SPA; MPL breached a duty by issuing a credibility letter amounting to assurance beyond a compilation engagement and was liable for negligent misstatement a…
29 Oct 2021

JDA CO. LTD v AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LTD [2021] NZHC 2912

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2912
Court

High Court

The policy does not require exporters to be ATL customers other than for insurance; election of Institute Cargo Clauses (A) or (B) is required prior to attachment but Clause (B) (named perils) is implied in absence of express election by virtue of the parties' conduct/estoppel; a timely monthly declaration to the insurer (within seven days of month end) is a promissory warranty — breach discharges insurer from date of breach; JDA had a standing order evincing pre-attachment intention but failed to include its vehicle in the relevant monthly declaration so no recoverable liability; NCL and Int…
1 Apr 2021

POUTU, WANO, SKELTON, KOPU, PANOHO, RITAI AND TAMATI v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 723

Citation

[2021] NZHC 723
Court

High Court

The court granted rectification because objective and documentary evidence demonstrated a common continuing intention and agreement that the 20% adjustment applied only to the Courthouse land; the PRS contained a drafting error that mistakenly applied the discount to all Ministry of Justice properties; the entire agreement clause and statutory finality did not bar rectification because interpretation/implementation remain justiciable; accordingly the PRS definition was rectified to confine the 20% adjustment to Ministry of Justice (Courts) properties and a declaration was made to that effect.
12 Dec 2019

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LIMITED v WETA ESTATE LIMITED [2019] NZSC 145

Citation

[2019] NZSC 145
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted only on whether the Court of Appeal was correct about (a) the effect of the two earlier judgments concerning termination on the parties' legal positions and (b) the interpretation of clauses 2.2 and 2.4; the interpretation question must be resolved without referring to pre‑contract negotiations or post‑contractual conduct; all other grounds failed the leave criteria and were dismissed.
28 May 2019

AW ROBERTSON CONSTRUCTION LTD v TRUONG [2019] NZHC 1180 .

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1180
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because the Company demonstrated a reasonably arguable case that on an overall accounting and taking into account disputed payments and invoices there is no indebtedness owing to the respondent; factual disputes (including forgery and payment allocation) cannot be resolved on affidavit and estoppel by convention was not established.
21 Sept 2018

WESTGATE TOWN CENTRE LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2489

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2489
Court

High Court

WDA 2 and WDA 2-Variation unambiguously required WTCL (as developer) to pay its portion of the Transpower undergrounding costs in full, without set-off, on the invoiced due date; neither contextual evidence nor implied/implicit terms, estoppel or equitable set-off defeat that clear contractual obligation; the Council was entitled to summary judgment for NZ$11,855,205.32 plus default interest from 1 November 2017 until payment; no stay or refusal of summary judgment was justified.
3 Jun 2016

DEBT BUYERS LIMITED v D L BRADFORD, J A HEWETT AND ROBERT BURNES TRUSTEE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1182

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1182
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the summary judgment application because clause 15.3(c) could not be treated as unambiguous in context; there were credible factual and legal arguments (common intention, industry practice, estoppel by convention, rectification) that constituted an arguable defence for RBTL which required trial determination rather than disposal on summary judgment.
18 May 2016

ANGLAND & ORS v MOWER & ORS [2016] NZHC 1014

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1014
Court

High Court

The written settlement constituted an accord and conditional satisfaction that was conditional only on payment being made in full; payment to Mr Mower triggered the contract obligations and the agreement became unconditional on payment, requiring discontinuance of proceedings. Because payment occurred and the settlement became unconditional, RWAS's counterclaim was an abuse of process or no longer reasonably arguable and was struck out.