20 Oct 2023
Costs were awarded to AC/JV on a 2B scale with a 40% uplift because GCG unreasonably pursued an expert determination despite clear authority that it was inappropriate, forced AC/JV to bring an urgent without‑notice injunction and opposed that application, and provided no reasonable justification for its conduct.
16 Aug 2023
The expert determination process under the NZS 3915 contract is intended for prompt resolution during or immediately after carrying out the contract works; GCG sought to invoke that process many months/years after vacating the site without providing particulars or complying with contractual time limits, making the quick expert process inappropriate and unfair; the applicant raised a strong arguable case that the expert route is time-barred and the balance of convenience and overall justice favour granting an interim injunction to restrain the expert determination pending resolution of the sub…
16 May 2023
The Court held EY prepared the valuation in accordance with its contractual mandate and AES-2, exercising professional judgment legitimately entrusted by the parties; alleged errors about comparators, post-date evidence, or multiplier selection were matters of judgment within the valuer's remit and did not amount to material departures from mandate, so the High Court's summary judgment ordering specific performance was upheld and the further evidence application was declined.
17 Feb 2023
On the material before the Court Satori was shown to be insolvent on both cash‑flow and balance‑sheet bases and had no viable arguable defence sufficient to meet the threshold for leave to file a late defence; New Zealand courts have statutory jurisdiction and are the appropriate forum; it was just and equitable to place Satori into liquidation and to appoint liquidators, and the shareholder's interlocutory applications and protest to jurisdiction were dismissed.
26 Jul 2022
The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs: the appeal did not render appellate relief nugatory, adequate protections (undertaking not to discontinue without leave) existed, the defendant failed to show genuine prejudice from transfer, the plaintiffs would suffer financial prejudice if stay granted, and the defendant's conduct and weak prospects weighed against a stay; accordingly the stay was refused and the application dismissed.
11 Nov 2021
The written assignment complied with Property Law Act s 50 and transferred DSL's rights and remedies under the Heads of Agreement to Dairy Solutionz (Processing) Ltd, so DSL lacked any arguable counterclaim or set-off when it applied under s 290; there were no other compelling grounds under s 290(4)(c) to set aside the statutory demand; the application is dismissed and DSL ordered to pay the NZD equivalent of USD 50,000 as determined by the expert.
8 Sept 2021
The accountant's determination was enforceable: he addressed the contractually defined question (net value at the termination date), used appropriate methodology (including market/development value as part of net assets), properly engaged and directed a qualified valuer, afforded parties opportunity to supply material, and there was no evidence of actual bias or procedural breach sufficient to vitiate the determination; plaintiff's post-termination involvement did not cause provable loss to justify a set-off; interest under the deed runs from the termination date and the deed prescribes base/…
16 Jul 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted because the interpretation issue (whether contractual interpretation should override land law principles in defining 'the Land') is a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument and may be 'strongly arguable' when viewed properly; the private interest (substantial money and remaining lease term) marginally outweighed the costs and delay of further appeal; costs reserved pending outcome of the appeal.
6 Nov 2019
The Court held that clause 13 is a mandatory contractual submission to staged dispute resolution and, although the Court had jurisdiction (the defendant had participated in earlier interlocutory proceedings), the proper exercise of that jurisdiction was to set aside the defendant's appearance under protest and stay the proceeding pending reference of any residual dispute to the contractual dispute resolution process in clause 13; the existing expert is likely functus officio so any new references must be made afresh, and the parties have leave to seek further court assistance if necessary.
23 May 2019
There was no substantial dispute under s290(4)(a): the Independent Lawyer made clear findings of breaches; clause 6.5 operates to award liquidated damages absent a determination that breaches were purely technical; damages are payable per breach as reasonably read into the deed; the statutory demands for $137,485.29 were valid and must be paid, so the applications to set them aside were dismissed.