New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ostensible/apparent authority

Legal area

Court

3 May 2021

STUDIO NEW ZEALAND LTD v WALLACE & ORS [2021] NZHC 959

Citation

[2021] NZHC 959
Court

High Court

On an objective construction of the 27 August and 7/9 September 2020 communications, the parties agreed the legally essential terms (property, price of $53.5m, due diligence condition) and manifested an immediate intention to be bound; given the parties' prior dealings and the language used, it was reasonably arguable that Bruce and Robert Wallace had ostensible authority to represent the trustees; accordingly SNZ established a reasonably arguable equitable interest supporting the caveat and the caveat should be sustained pending trial.
14 May 2020

AVON PARNELL LIMITED v CHEVIN [2020] NZHC 976

Citation

[2020] NZHC 976
Court

High Court

On the serious question threshold the Court held APL raised a serious question that it is not bound by the loan because the change recorded at the Registrar was not a notice provided by the company's board under s159 and the fraudulent filing was not an act of a person of the kind covered by s18(2); accordingly interim injunctive relief restraining the mortgagee was justified pending trial.
8 Nov 2017

INCODO LTD v KOP-COAT NEW ZEALAND LTD & ANOR [2017] NZHC 2737

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2737
Court

High Court

Court found a binding contract formed on 22 May 2015. Mr Scott had ostensible authority to bind Kop-Coat NZ and, on the facts and s18 Companies Act, Kop-Coat Inc was bound by his apparent authority. Defendants repudiated the contract on or about 3 July 2015. Claims under the Contractual Remedies Act and Fair Trading Act were considered but no separate damages award made under the Fair Trading Act; misrepresentation claim failed. Damages for loss of chance assessed: court adopted plaintiff expert's valuation ($3,470,000) discounted to a 60% chance to reflect the quality of the lost opportunity…
16 Dec 2014

PASCOE PROPERTIES LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA 755/2012[2014] NZCA 616

Citation

[2014] NZCA 616
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Ministry, through its senior officer (Grindey) and a course of dealing, had represented that its property consultant (Benjamin) had authority to negotiate and thereby cloaked him with ostensible authority; however, no binding renewal contract was formed because the correspondence objectively contemplated further steps (preparation and execution of a formal variation/deed) before the Ministry would be bound. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed though leave was granted to admit fresh evidence.
14 May 2014

WT TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD v CATO [2014] NZHC 994

Citation

[2014] NZHC 994
Court

High Court

WT failed to show a reasonably arguable caveatable interest because no binding sale agreement existed: the draft agreement lacked the signature of the third trustee who had not authorised the others to bind him, the two signatures were conditional and there was no evidence of actual or ostensible authority to bind the absent trustee; accordingly the application to prevent lapse of the caveat was dismissed.
17 Dec 2013

KEN JONES BUILDING SUPPLIES LIMITED t/a Placemakers Cranford, Cranford Street, Christchurch v EDENDALE INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3429

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3429
Court

High Court

There was no evidence of actual or ostensible authority on the part of Mr C H Waters to bind Edendale Investments Limited to the Agreement to Mortgage; Companies Act s18 and the indoor management rule do not create such authority where the company has not held the director out as having it; because the caveator failed to establish an arguable interest under s137 the application to sustain the caveat was dismissed.
26 Apr 2012

MUSTANG MARINE NOMINEES PTY LIMITED V THE VESSEL "TUNA TO GO" HC AK CIV-2010-404-008522

Citation

openlaw-2613e50e_1d24_4efe_8b73_3485b2c3020a.pdf
Court

High Court

Mustang was the legal owner immediately prior to the taking; White did not have actual authority and the evidence did not establish ostensible authority or authority under s18 Companies Act; White was not shown to be a mercantile agent acting in the ordinary course such that s3 MLA validated the disposition; title did not pass to MacFarlane and his possession therefore amounted to conversion. Mustang was awarded damages of $140,000 with interest from 22 May 2009. Contributory negligence was not available to reduce Mustang's recovery in respect of conversion. Separately, MacFarlane established…
22 Jul 2009

HERON'S FLIGHT LIMITED V NZ PROPERTIES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-002101

Citation

openlaw-b3b1bf64_aeca_4596_9874_f380d1d3fc79.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that by her conduct (silence at the January meeting, presence at signing, permitting Lowndes to draft and advance the agreement) the purchaser clothed Mr Lowndes with ostensible authority to act as her legal advisor and to confirm satisfaction of the due diligence condition; his notification that the condition was satisfied bound the parties, the contracts became unconditional and the agent's commission was earned.
13 Jul 2009

BANKFIELD FARM LIMITED V HART AND ORS CA CA343/2008

Citation

openlaw-5f6e835c_3b69_4a5c_8d92_141cc641eb64.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held Mr Belcher had actual authority to negotiate and conclude the settlement on Bankfield's behalf based on express instructions to 'reach settlement' dated 17 July 2007 and beneficiaries' directions; alternatively he had implied authority as counsel to compromise the litigation and consequent ostensible authority as against Harvest Trust; his signed fax constituted a sufficient memorandum under the Contracts Enforcement Act 1956 s2, therefore the settlement was binding and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Apr 2009

IH WEDDING & SONS LTD AND ANOR V BUY-SELL REALTY NZ LTD HC AK CIV-2008-404-005502

Citation

openlaw-3872307a_3b72_4d6e_8415_5704c680c5fe.pdf
Court

High Court

Non-compliance with s62(b) of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976, because no clear unequivocal written appointment signed by or on behalf of the principal existed, precluded the respondent from recovering the claimed fees; additionally Mr Askew had neither actual nor ostensible authority to re-engage the respondent and the respondent had or ought to have had notice requiring inquiry; accordingly the District Court judgment was set aside and judgment entered for the appellants with repayment of judgment, interest and costs and costs on appeal awarded.