New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Frustrated contracts act 1944

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2015

JACKSON SURRIDGE PROPERTY GROUP LTD v EASTERN STAR GROUP LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1890

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1890
Court

High Court

Plaintiff's application for specific performance was dismissed because it failed to prove readiness and ability to settle on the settlement date; defendant was not entitled to relief under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 or the Frustrated Contracts Act 1944 because there was no mistake at the time of contracting and the contract remained capable of performance.
30 Nov 2012

PLANET KIDS LTD V AUCKLAND COUNCIL COA CA58/2012

Citation

openlaw-c322da6c_f563_436b_977d_20860283a242.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The settlement agreement was frustrated because its essential common purpose — the surrender of Planet Kids' leasehold interest and the statutory compensation exchange under the Public Works Act on the settlement date — was destroyed by the fire which terminated the lease before settlement, making the contract radically different from that agreed; peripheral benefits obtained by the Council did not prevent frustration and foreseeability did not preclude frustration because Planet Kids retained the risk prior to settlement.
16 Dec 2011

PLANET KIDS LIMITED V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2011-404-1741

Citation

openlaw-aded9a1b_ee1f_4a03_b21e_35f80082add2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the parties contracted on the fundamental assumption that the plaintiff would have an estate or interest in the land at settlement and that the defendant would thereby acquire that interest; the unanticipated destruction of the leased premises and resultant termination of the lease destroyed that basic assumption and thus frustrated the agreement, discharging both parties from further performance and defeating the plaintiff's summary judgment application.
23 Oct 2008

GARMONSWAY V RAGLAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD & ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001066

Citation

openlaw-76848b8f_38ab_4596_a2dc_9d0b5f128f28.pdf
Court

High Court

Although jurisdiction under r 60 was established (plaintiff unable to pay), the Court exercised its discretion against ordering security because the plaintiff's case was not unjustified and had arguable merit (onsale amounted to prima facie repudiation and lack of evidence of formal discharge); ordering security would likely prevent access to justice and was inappropriate on the balance of interests; accordingly application for security for costs was declined and costs of the application reserved to trial.

New Zealand Case Law

JACKSON SURRIDGE PROPERTY GROUP LTD v EASTERN STAR GROUP LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1890

PLANET KIDS LTD V AUCKLAND COUNCIL COA CA58/2012

PLANET KIDS LIMITED V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2011-404-1741

GARMONSWAY V RAGLAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD & ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001066