New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Good faith obligations

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2021

GLAISTER FARMS LIMITED v ROWE FARMING SYSTEMS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1587

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1587
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because the applicant raised reasonably arguable post‑termination counterclaims that materially reduced the sum claimed so that the demand could not be maintained; the Termination Agreement did not contain a clear full and final settlement of all matters and good faith obligations did not preclude pursuing claims discovered after termination.
3 Sept 2020

COUPE v LEARMONTH [2020] NZHC 2281

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2281
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's claim was poorly pleaded and had significant shortcomings but was not, on the available material, shown to be incontrovertibly meritless or vexatious; however, because the defendants gave detailed notice in a Calderbank letter on 19 November 2019 and the plaintiff continued to pursue the claim unreasonably for six more months, an uplift of 50% from 19 November 2019 on scale costs was justified; indemnity costs were not awarded; costs for preparation of submissions for unheared applications were recoverable as they were prepared before abandonment in the customary timetable.
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…
19 Nov 2018

AUTOTERMINAL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v IBC JAPAN LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2986

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2986
Court

High Court

Although ATNZ established serious questions to be tried as to breaches of the alleged supplemental agreements and some VSA obligations, the Court refused the interim injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy, there were real doubts about the lawfulness and enforceability of the supplemental agreements under the Commerce Act s27, practical and enforcement difficulties with granting mandatory relief for sale of goods (particularly given cross-border performance in Japan), and ATNZ's precarious financial position and large contingent debt to IBC weighed against granting interlocutor…
13 Aug 2018

E E PORTEOUS v THE NATIONAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALASIA AND AMP LIFE LTD, LATITUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD and MARSH LTD[2018] NZHC 2056

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2056
Court

High Court

The fifth cause of action was struck out because its gist directly and essentially concerned the employment relationship: the alleged implied term was to be implied into the employment contract, the rights asserted were derived from that contract, and therefore the claim fell within the Employment Relations Authority's exclusive jurisdiction under s 161 ERA 2000.
16 May 2016

HELI HOLDINGS LTD v THE HELICOPTER LINE LTD [2016] NZHC 976

Citation

[2016] NZHC 976
Court

High Court

Heli Holdings breached contractual obligations (maintenance standards, 'just culture', good faith) in the 2008–2013 period but THL did not quantify loss and remained liable for shortfall hours to 30 June 2013; proved liability for shortfall hours 1 July 2008–30 June 2013 is NZD 2,015,724.72 (plus Judicature Act interest from 26 Sep 2013). By 2 July 2013 Heli Holdings (via chairman Jones) repudiated and/or manifested continuing material breach by refusing to accept THL's maintenance/safety concerns and limiting obligations to mere regulatory compliance; THL was justified to ground the fleet an…
1 Dec 2015

PORIRUA WHANAU CENTRE TRUST v NGAWHARAU [2015] NZCA 585

Citation

[2015] ERNZ 93
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because no seriously arguable question of law was established: the Employment Court applied the correct legal tests (including Ramsbottom and s4 good faith) and its factual findings that the employee was dismissed and that the employer's later offer was not bona fide were open on the evidence.
4 Apr 2014

GLOBAL KIWI NZ LIMITED v FANNIN [2014] NZHC 656

Citation

[2014] NZHC 656
Court

High Court

Claims against the third defendant arose from and were related to the employment relationship and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority under s161 ERA 2000; by contrast, the claims against the first defendant as director (and the second defendant company) concerned duties as director and some post‑employment conduct and therefore remained properly within the High Court's jurisdiction.
22 Jun 2011

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION COA CA305/2011

Citation

COA CA305/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

A negative secret ballot under s47 prevents continuation of employer-initiated bargaining for a single multi-employer collective agreement; given the statutory text, the prescribed ballot procedure, symmetry with s45, and the object in s31, the Union was entitled to initiate bargaining with individual employers and the Employment Court's conclusion was correct.
8 Jun 2010

SHELL (PETROLEUM MINING) COMPANY LIMITED V TODD PETROLEUM MINING COMPANY LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-2024

Citation

openlaw-a4226d3b_924c_4042_bf10_ebc066b3eabc.pdf
Court

High Court

The court reissued part of its earlier judgment to address a material omission but refused recall except for insertion of specified paragraphs; Article 33(3) does not extend time to permit reconsideration of a claim dismissed by clear terms of the award; leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from refusals to grant leave under the Arbitration Act requires serious arguability and general importance, which the court found lacking on the contested questions (ownership under clause 5(1), acceleration of clause 16.2, definition of "transport charges" where the award dismissed the claim, alleged br…