New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oppression under cccfa

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2023

HEARTLAND BANK LIMITED v KIWI FLAVOUR INFUSIONS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1849

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1849
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the default summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial ground of defence based on oppression or economic duress, the contemporaneous documents and evidence did not support the claimed coercion, defendant had alternatives and independent advice, and the lengthy unexplained delay in bringing the application weighed against setting aside the judgment.
5 Apr 2023

MEGA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED v PEARLFISHER CAPITAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 749

Citation

[2023] NZHC 749
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because Mega Capital failed to show it was reasonably arguable the credit contracts were oppressive under the CCCFA: Mega Capital was a sophisticated commercial borrower with legal and professional advice, fees and timing were disclosed and negotiated, Pearlfisher provided a commercially rational explanation for fee structure and risk, and the fees were not so excessive on their face in context to justify reopening the contracts; therefore there was no substantial dispute as required to set aside the statutory demand.
24 Nov 2017

EXPORT FINANCE LTD v MELLSOP & Ors [2017] NZHC 2908

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2908
Court

High Court

The Deed of 21 February 2014 was unambiguous and dispositive; defendants failed to produce credible, corroborated evidence of any contradictory oral agreement or estoppel, failed to establish oppression under the CCCFA or that the default interest rate was a penalty, and therefore had no real defence to defeat summary judgment; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff was entered for the claimed amounts including default interest from 30 May 2017.
25 Oct 2017

DINERS CLUB (NZ) LIMITED v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2017] NZHC 2616 [25 October 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2616
Court

High Court

Section 120 of the CCCFA, read in light of its consumer‑protection purpose, permits a court to reopen an oppressive credit contract on its own motion in any proceedings; Rule 15.7 of the District Court Rules confers a discretion to seal default judgment for an undefended liquidated demand and does not oblige sealing in every case; when directing a formal proof the court must give succinct notice of the concerns to the creditor but need not provide extensive reasons at that stage.
16 Oct 2017

BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LTD v ANZ BANK NZ LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2520

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2520
Court

High Court

Claims dismissed: the court found no binding agreement to fix margins at 0.70% for five years; the Bank made misleading statements comparing swaps to fixed loans but did not fraudulently conceal facts; crucially the swap and loan written terms (no‑reliance/entire agreement clauses) combined with solicitor's certificates of independent advice severed the proximity and reliance necessary for tort and contractual remedies and broke causation; most FTA claims were time‑barred and the CCCFA/oppression claim failed on the facts and objective commercial standards.
27 Feb 2017

NAPIER v WAIMANA INVESTMENTS LTD [2017] NZHC 265

Citation

[2017] NZHC 265
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried on whether the defendant's conduct was a departure from reasonable standards of commercial practice under s118 CCCFA, but on balance of convenience damages were an adequate remedy and the enforcement process should proceed; nevertheless overall justice warranted a short limited interim injunction (six weeks) to allow trustees to pursue voluntary sale options before defendant could exercise power of sale.
25 May 2016

KBL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v KBL COURTENAY LIMITED & ORS [2016] NZCA 227

Citation

[2016] NZCA 227
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court found any broker fiduciary relationship was short‑lived and ended when the Orakei investor proposal failed; the evidence did not establish deliberate concealment, misuse of confidential information, or an intention to acquire the property for themselves at KBL's expense; there was no established causal loss or oppressive conduct under the CCCFA; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
19 Nov 2013

WAIPAREIRA INVESTMENTS LTD v IVIL [2013] NZHC 3048

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3048
Court

High Court

Defendant has no arguable defence to the claim on the guarantee: the deed makes the guarantor a principal debtor and prevents discharge by impairment or surrender of securities; proposed equitable/set-off and equitable fraud defences are either barred by contract or too speculative; plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for debt (reduced by claimed legal costs) and liability only for solicitor-client costs with quantum reserved.
29 Feb 2012

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V ANTHONY EDWARD KEANE HC AK CIV-2011-404-005482

Citation

openlaw-7050e2f8_9dc1_407a_8492_5fbbeab0f78b.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant had no arguable defence: the Bank obtained independent valuation advice and appointed an experienced agent, ran a reasonable marketing campaign taking prior exposure into account, and the sale result reflected the market under prevailing conditions; the CCCFA and Fair Trading Act allegations were not tenable on the pleaded facts; no principled basis existed to exercise discretion to refuse summary judgment; summary judgment entered for the Bank.
6 Dec 2011

AXA NEW ZEALAND NOMINEES LIMITED V 10 GILMER LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) HC WN CIV 2011-485-1572

Citation

openlaw-d579e396_c490_425d_8ec7_54d1686b87ac.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendants failed to establish a reasonably arguable case of oppression: the valuation and LVR covenant were contractual, AXA's conduct fell within agreed contractual and statutory powers, defendants did not adduce adequate evidence that appointment of receivers or other actions amounted to conduct contrary to reasonable commercial standards, and therefore summary judgment and vacant possession were appropriate.