New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late settlement interest

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2018

NGOI v WEN [2018] NZHC 3378

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3378
Court

High Court

The agreement was held to provide for the property to be sold tenanted (the handwritten notation "with current tenancy" constituted sufficient particulars), so clause 3.13(5) of the ADLS/REINZ form governs default accounting (vendor to account to purchaser for incomings less outgoings during the default period); no implied term converting the sale to vacant possession upon the original tenant vacating was to be implied; and the defendant was not entitled to contractual penalty interest because the parties were bound to comply with the Court of Appeal's order for settlement and the defendant c…
5 Dec 2016

NGUYEN AND NGUYEN v SM & T HOMES LIMITED [2016] NZCA 581

Citation

[2016] NZCA 581
Court

Court of Appeal

The contract was concluded at the fall of the hammer; the combined effect of the Reserve Authority and Auction Conditions signed by the vendors provided a sufficient written record under s 24 PLA 2007 to bind both vendors (and the auction process authorised completion of price/purchaser details); alternatively the purchaser's immediate payment of the deposit to the vendors' agent constituted part performance; accordingly specific performance was available and the agreed default interest rate applied.
28 Apr 2008

SUDA GROUP LTD V SEE WAI AND PUTI YING WONG CA CA1/07

Citation

openlaw-25c47347_7b10_4d1e_b350_fe4b4ecd222e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 3.10 did not apply because the default period could not commence before new titles issued; the possession/settlement obligations were contingent on issuance of new titles which the appellant was obliged to procure after affirming the contract, so the appellant was not entitled to interest for late settlement.
17 May 2006

ROCHIS LT V CHAMBERS HC HAM CIV 2005-419-1028

Citation

openlaw-9766f423_83fa_43cb_ac8d_221569ff20eb.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 16 made the USD relation a material contractual feature and the vendors had a foreseeable right to be compensated for adverse exchange rate movement as general damages under clause 9.4(1)(b); clause 3.9(1)'s interest entitlement did not preclude recovery of exchange-rate losses because such losses cannot sensibly be liquidated by pre-agreed interest and were not remote; accordingly Rochis could not recover the exchange-rate compensation from the Chambers family and judgment was for the Chambers family.

New Zealand Case Law

NGOI v WEN [2018] NZHC 3378

NGUYEN AND NGUYEN v SM & T HOMES LIMITED [2016] NZCA 581

SUDA GROUP LTD V SEE WAI AND PUTI YING WONG CA CA1/07

ROCHIS LT V CHAMBERS HC HAM CIV 2005-419-1028