New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of settlement deed

Legal area

Court

1 Nov 2013

JERLING & ORS v MOSS BROTHERS & ORS [2013] NZHC 2893

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2893
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the arbitrator's injunction ([254](2)) because the arbitrator breached natural justice by refusing to allow relevant evidence from the parties' solicitors which could have affected a pivotal contractual interpretation; it set aside the damages award ([254](6)) for failure to give reasons as required by art 31(2) and thereby breaching natural justice; and it set aside the costs award ([254](8)) because the arbitrator permitted respondents to establish indemnity costs without supervisory oversight and denied applicants a chance to be heard on that basis. The remainder of the…
24 Oct 2007

MICHELE CHRISTINE BISHOP V JOSETTE MAY SOLANGE BISHOP HC AK CIV2007-404-1435

Citation

openlaw-c319a17c_4449_406c_a00f_9b70c700e22e.pdf
Court

High Court

The settlement deed did not create a present beneficial interest in the respondent's home; clause (c) is a testamentary promise/limitation on future gifts and does not impose a trust over the property or proceeds now, therefore the applicant cannot show an arguable beneficial interest in specific land under s137 and the caveat must be dismissed and interim non-lapse order vacated.
8 Sept 2006

TAYLOR V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND CA CA151/05

Citation

openlaw-743c7a1f_b2a2_40c7_a3b5_b76d75e7df90.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deed unambiguously made the $150,000 payable six months after Mrs Taylor senior's death unless the Akaroa property was sold earlier; the BNZ facsimile did not constitute a clear representation of debt forgiveness and Mr Taylor did not rely on any such representation, therefore BNZ was entitled to enforce the Deed and claim the balance; appeal only succeeds to correct the judgment sum and interest rate.
4 Nov 2005

REIHANA V CROWN ISLAND ADMINISTERING BODY AND ANOR CA CA193/04

Citation

openlaw-46ee4725_856a_498a_a0eb_adced8cc04e1.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed because the CIAB did not legally exist until formal appointment and Gazette notification, the Deed and Regulations did not prohibit prior wananga or hui, no actionable breach of the legislation was established, and any remedial relief was rendered futile by delay and subsequent change to separate membership in 2003.
18 Oct 2005

SPENCE FARMS LIMITED V FINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2005-409-1880

Citation

openlaw-475fd6f1_d9a1_41f0_8b18_56ebda9373bd.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted the applicants' interlocutory applications because there was a substantial and properly arguable dispute about the construction of clause 3 of the settlement deed (notably whether the $300,000 was an advance at the settlement date and whether interest was payable), significant factual conflicts that could not be resolved on affidavit, and therefore a strong prima facie case of a genuine dispute existed warranting a stay and restraint pending trial.

New Zealand Case Law

JERLING & ORS v MOSS BROTHERS & ORS [2013] NZHC 2893

MICHELE CHRISTINE BISHOP V JOSETTE MAY SOLANGE BISHOP HC AK CIV2007-404-1435

TAYLOR V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND CA CA151/05

REIHANA V CROWN ISLAND ADMINISTERING BODY AND ANOR CA CA193/04

SPENCE FARMS LIMITED V FINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2005-409-1880