New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act 2003

  • 26 Oct 2016

    DINERS CLUB (NZ) LTD v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZHC 2551

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 2551
    Court
    High Court

    Leave to intervene was granted because the Commission's statutory role and specialist expertise are directly relevant to policy and enforcement issues engaged by Diners' broad challenge; intervention is appropriate at an early stage but must be strictly confined to submissions and evidence about the Commission's role, its intervention power and timing, and the impact of any decision on that role.

    • Default judgment
    • Formal proof hearing
    • Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act 2003
    • Intervention by non‑party
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Court inherent jurisdiction

  • 17 Feb 2016

    THOMAS FREDERICK MAZLIN KING AND JUDITH RUTH KING v PFL FINANCE LIMITED [2016] NZSC 12

    Citation
    [2016] NZSC 12
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicants sought to reargue concurrent factual findings below; the receiver's cessation of farming was reasonable based on expert evidence and the farm's poor prospects, there was no realistic prospect of refinancing so failure to serve notice caused no loss, any admissibility issue was immaterial, and there is no risk of miscarriage of justice or matter of public or commercial importance warranting leave.

    • Service of notice under property law act s119
    • Duties of receiver under s18(3) receivership act 1993
    • Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act 2003
    • Admissibility of solicitor's file notes under s18 evidence act 2006
    • Costs and legal aid under s45 legal services act 2011

  • 24 Jul 2014

    FORTES AND ANOR v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND CA612/2013 [2014] NZCA 346

    Citation
    [2014] NZCA 346
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Bank was not arguably on notice of facts suggesting fraud that were not already known to the Fortes and their solicitor; therefore the loan did not breach reasonable standards of commercial practice under s 120(a) CCFA and the summary judgment in favor of the Bank was correctly upheld.

    • Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act 2003
    • Duty to inquire
    • Summary judgment
    • Conveyancing practice
    • Hydraulic fraud

  • 4 Jun 2013

    WILTSHIRE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v SYMONS [2013] NZHC 1300

    Citation
    [2013] NZHC 1300
    Court
    High Court

    Disclosure of the settlement deeds demonstrated no collateral benefits beyond the $1,400,000 receipt; clauses complained of were lawful commercial terms entered into by Wiltshire and the receiver acting within duties under the Receiverships Act; the allegations of bad faith, oppressive conduct, fiduciary breach and interference in the receivership did not meet legal thresholds to discharge guarantors or to reopen credit contracts; the Fibroin guarantee is a separate facility and not reopenable on these facts; accordingly plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the guarantees.

    • Summary judgment
    • Assignment of securities
    • Settlement agreement
    • Bad faith discharge of guarantor
    • Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act 2003
    • Reopening credit contracts

  • 16 Dec 2008

    JOHN RICHARD TOWNSEND GIFFORD AND SUELLEN GIFFORD AND ORS HC NAP CIV 2008-441-713

    Citation
    openlaw-2c3b33e3_0f5d_429f_bad3_90fabfc7a388.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The application for an interim injunction was refused because the applicants, as guarantors and not the victim company, had a low likelihood of success on the pleaded novel causes of action; the balance of convenience favoured the bank given long-standing default, rapidly accruing indebtedness, valuations indicating diminishing security, inadequate offer to remedy default, and risk of prejudice to the bank outweighing potential prejudice to the applicants.

    • Mortgagee sale
    • Guarantees
    • Implied contractual terms
    • Duty to warn/negligence
    • Discharge of guarantor
    • Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act 2003

  • 17 Oct 2008

    ODIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS V CRAWFORD & ANOR HC CIV 2008-404-000581

    Citation
    openlaw-01fdfea7_bb0d_4c06_97a1_c6bc14ad6370.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Summary judgment was entered for plaintiffs on the guaranteed indebtedness because the contractual guarantees (excluding set-off) and plaintiffs' evidential material showed defendants had no tenable defence to liability; defendants' oppression claim under the CCCFA lacked evidential foundation. However, there was prima facie evidential support that the mortgagee sale may have been at an undervalue giving rise to an equitable breach; accordingly execution was stayed in part ($629,500) subject to defendants issuing proceedings within a set period and prosecuting them diligently.

    • Guarantee and indemnity
    • Mortgagee sale
    • Duty to obtain best price
    • Summary judgment
    • Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act 2003
    • Stay of execution