New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Implication of terms

Legal area

Court

13 May 2022

THE BIG BASIN LIMITED v STOCKCO LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1020

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1020
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the alleged errors of law were not strongly arguable; StockCo's claim was contractual (liquidated debt) not an action in bailment so common law bailment principles including delivery and ascertainment were not prerequisites to recovery under the MLA/SA(1); the arbitrator's factual findings on delivery were within the scope of the arbitration and are not a basis for appeal; the contested interpretation of the directors' certificate was not a strongly arguable legal error and would not materially affect the outcome; and alternative or obiter findings did not…
14 Jul 2021

BATHURST RESOURCES LIMITED v L & M COAL HOLDINGS LIMITED [2021] NZSC 85

Citation

[2021] 1 NZLR 696
Court

Supreme Court

The majority held that clause 3.4's word 'shipped' is to be read as 'transported' from the permit areas (so the first performance payment was triggered once 25,000 tonnes had been transported off the permit areas), and that clause 3.10 (Third Deed) was a concession that allows deferral of a performance payment only while the relevant royalty payments continue as payable under the royalty deed and in practice reflect ongoing mining at levels consistent with that which triggered the payment; on that construction the appellants prevailed and judgment was entered for them (appeal allowed).
27 Jul 2020

BATHURST RESOURCES LIMITED v L&M HOLDINGS LIMITED [2020] NZSC 73

Citation

[2020] NZSC 73
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal so the Court can determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal, and to hear argument on admissibility of prior negotiations and subsequent conduct and on the proper test for implying terms; the existing Zurich principles remain undisturbed for the purpose of this leave decision.
19 Jun 2019

JACKS POINT VILLAGE HOLDINGS NO 2 LIMITED v LONG CAPITAL HOLDINGS NZ LIMITED[2019] NZHC 1405

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1405
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff because the purchaser elected not to submit a development plan for an economic reason not contemplated by the contract; clause 32.2 imposed a mandatory obligation to provide a development plan and clause 26.1(b)(i) (special condition) governs release of deposits, so the purchaser cannot rely on its own breach or an implied term permitting termination for economic unviability.
5 Aug 2015

TTAH LIMITED & ANOR V KONINKLIJKE TEN CATE NV & ORS CA 589/2014 [2015] NZCA 348 [5 August 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZCA 348
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court orders, and reinstated the first and third causes of action because Tigerturf's interpretation that the Option II payment obligation crystallised on the contractual settlement date and gave rise to default interest was reasonably arguable and therefore not strike-outable, and the third cause of action was not an abuse of process as a matter of law given concurrent proceedings in different jurisdictions are not automatically abusive; implication of terms to defer payment would require contested factual evidence and could not be res…
16 Nov 2011

MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED V BOUTLE HC NEL CIV-2011-442-314

Citation

openlaw-27798934_a695_488d_a5cb_2918c0e167d9.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 2.1 must be read with the Third Schedule; the lessor is only liable for outgoings that form part of amounts it pays to the body corporate and therefore only to the proportion required by body corporate rules; no contractual obligation exists to pay suppliers directly and a term imposing such liability cannot be implied under BP Refinery.
22 Aug 2007

GATEHOUSE V MIDDLETON AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-808

Citation

openlaw-6a0a6d92_fd2c_4487_8acb_2253c94af966.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the High Court correctly applied orthodox principles in implying the contractual term (business efficacy/obvious intention), clause 88 was properly interpreted as not excluding implied terms, and the issues did not raise sufficient public or private importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.
1 Aug 2005

THE CHRISTCHURCH PRESS, A DIVISION OF FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NZ AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING PRINTING AND MANUFACTURING UNION INC CA CA102/05

Citation

openlaw-c69ed778_80eb_4375_9534_1b19d65c76bf.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the Employment Court's decision was an application of s61 to the facts (finding that individual job-and-finish terms existed by mutual agreement) and did not involve the implication of terms or a novel question of law; the issues raised did not meet the s214 threshold of general or public importance or other reason to warrant this Court's intervention.