New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation of liability clause

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2021

ALARON PRODUCTS LIMITED v HIBISCUS SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1416

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1416
Court

High Court

The application for a separate hearing under r 10.15 was dismissed because the applicant failed to displace the presumption of resolving all issues at trial: the proposed preliminary hearing risked producing muddied or partial findings, timing constraints (including judgment time and the close of pleadings) and appeal complications outweighed the potential benefits, and maintaining the scheduled fixture better promoted finality and settlement.
26 Mar 2018

KONA ESTATE LIMITED v SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 529

Citation

[2018] NZHC 529
Court

High Court

The summary judgment application was dismissed because there were genuine contested issues of fact and credibility (including the consultant's explanation of design changes and an email admitting error) and an arguable defence that the DEE was only an indicative estimate and that scope changes and a binding construction contract explained the increased cost; therefore Seismic Performance Ltd had a viable defence and liability was not amenable to summary determination.
8 Nov 2013

REYNOLDS v BARRATT FAMILY TRUST [2013] NZHC 2992

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2992
Court

High Court

Service of the orders for examination was valid by posting to the specified PO Box under r6.1 and complied with r17.13 (which concerns timing not method); the sealed judgment could not be recalled under r11.9 and could not be substantively altered under r11.10 to introduce a limitation of liability not raised at the summary judgment hearing; accordingly the defendants' applications to recall or correct the sealed judgment were dismissed; the examination may extend to both trust assets and the defendants' personal means.
28 Aug 2013

R CAMERON AND SHORTTS ENGINEERING AND PLUMBING SUPPLIES LIMITED v TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2203

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2203
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the pleaded causes of action based on an alleged unauthorised transfer in 2010 because contemporaneous OO&T records and the customer transfer code established Telecom acted in accordance with its contractual and statutory obligations; claims for general and aggravated damages were struck out as not tenable in the commercial context and RC&S could not claim injury to feelings; Telecom's clause 18 clearly capped liability to NZD 50,000 per event (NZD 100,000 in any 12 month period) and special damages must be limited accordingly; security for costs was ordered in the sum of…
1 Mar 2011

MACKY TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED V MAINLINE CONTRACTING LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2010-404-006585

Citation

openlaw-4ab22d3a_5841_496c_b68b_57358c1b2327.pdf
Court

High Court

Affidavit evidence from the director and two solicitors, taken together with contemporaneous electronic settlement statements, raised a fairly arguable and substantial dispute that the $1,375,000 owing to Mainline was paid to Mainline Investments on Mainline's instruction; accordingly the statutory demand was properly set aside under s290(4)(a) and the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant.
20 Mar 2007

TRINITY FOUNDATION (SERVICES NO 1) LTD V DOWNEY & ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-001296

Citation

openlaw-b1cff1ca_b7d7_4722_aec3_ad9e4df9f72e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held preliminarily that Trinity's challenge to the liquidators' estimate is not clearly unsustainable and would survive a strike-out; however, because a decisive issue remains—whether proceeds of any successful actions against directors would constitute trust assets (and thereby increase the trust's assets available to satisfy Trinity's claim)—the court ordered the plaintiff to file a memorandum addressing that point within 21 days before final determination; costs reserved.
24 Aug 2006

SUVIC ENGINEERING LIMITED V EDWARD BROS CONSTRUCTION (HAWKE'S BAY) LIMITED HC NAP CIV 2006-441-419

Citation

openlaw-01cdafa2_db06_400a_842e_ee700897246f.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 17 did not apply to limit Suvic's liability on these facts because clause 17 is expressly directed at defective or non-complying goods and limits liability to the invoice value of the goods; it contains no provision addressing liability for services or overhaul of goods sent for repair. The contractual and commercial context (invoice describing 'overhaul oil pump' with labour and parts) shows the transaction was for servicing/overhaul, so the limitation clause, as drafted, does not cover the claim.

New Zealand Case Law

ALARON PRODUCTS LIMITED v HIBISCUS SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1416

KONA ESTATE LIMITED v SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 529

REYNOLDS v BARRATT FAMILY TRUST [2013] NZHC 2992

R CAMERON AND SHORTTS ENGINEERING AND PLUMBING SUPPLIES LIMITED v TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2203

MACKY TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED V MAINLINE CONTRACTING LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2010-404-006585

TRINITY FOUNDATION (SERVICES NO 1) LTD V DOWNEY & ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-001296

SUVIC ENGINEERING LIMITED V EDWARD BROS CONSTRUCTION (HAWKE'S BAY) LIMITED HC NAP CIV 2006-441-419