New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Performance bond

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2020

VAE NZ LTD v DECMIL CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD (IN LIQ) [2020] NZHC 2025

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2025
Court

High Court

The Court found a real risk the respondents would demand and cash the bonds, there exists a serious question to be tried as to whether the respondents are entitled to call the bonds, and given the first respondent's liquidation the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief; accordingly the Court granted leave under s 248 and an interim injunction restraining calling on the bonds.
25 May 2018

ROHITS CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1194

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1194
Court

High Court

Increased costs under r 14.6(3) were refused because the respondents advanced an arguable position that the bond was discharged by payment certified by the engineer and the settlement demand was not an offer under the Rules; CCB's failure to file submissions on time was non-compliance but did not justify increased costs given the substantive overlap and arguability of the respondents' position; costs were awarded to RCI in specified amounts with a 2A/2B approach to overlapping items and adjustments as detailed in the judgment.
23 Nov 2017

SPX FLOW TECHNOLOGY NZ LTD v GAS 1 LTD [2017] NZHC 2899

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2899
Court

High Court

Because the Court had previously reserved costs and interest and the parties agreed the quantification in filed memoranda, the Court ordered payment of the specified interest, costs and disbursements and made enforcement orders regarding the performance certification and performance bond.
20 Nov 2017

CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LTD v ROHITS CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [2017] NZHC 2844

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2844
Court

High Court

The Bond was an on‑demand guarantee independent of the underlying contract; the Contract Price for Bond purposes was the forecast contract sum (original sum plus variations) and had not been paid when RCIL demanded payment; therefore CCB had no real defence and summary judgment for the bond's face value was entered, and the injunction sought by CRDL was refused.
20 Jul 2017

RICHINA PACIFIC LTD v AAI LTD (FORMERLY VERO INSURANCE LTD) & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1686 [20 July 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1686
Court

High Court

The court held the bond was conditional; the Engineer's 25 September 2012 certificate operated as a valid partial certificate as treated and ratified by the contracting parties, carving the car stacker out of practical completion rather than discharging the bond; there was no prejudicial conduct by Samson or the Engineer discharging AAI; Samson proved reasonable costs arising from Mainzeal's default up to the $2,000,000 bond cap; AAI (formerly Vero) breached the bond and is liable to pay $2,000,000; Richina has standing under s 3 of the Declaratory Judgments Act to seek relief in these circum…
8 Dec 2016

CUSTOM STREET HOTEL LTD v PLUS CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD & ANOR [2016] NZHC 2934 [8 December 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2934
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the proposed questions of law raised bona fide and serious issues of contractual and arbitration law (including interpretation of NZS3910 clauses) with wider industry significance and a substantial private interest (amount in excess of NZD 3.6125 million), satisfying the Downer/Cooper test for leave under cl 5(5).
2 Jun 2016

CUSTOMS STREET HOTEL LTD v PLUS CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD & ANOR [2016] NZHC 1180 [2 June 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1180
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the Court was satisfied there are serious arguable questions of law arising from the arbitral award which, having regard to all the circumstances and Schedule 2 cl 5 of the Arbitration Act 1996, could substantially affect the rights of one or more parties; accordingly leave was granted and case management ordered.
11 Sept 2014

QUAY PARK ARENA MANAGEMENT LIMITED v GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE (UK) PLC [2014] NZHC 2204

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2204
Court

High Court

The bond's language made the defendant's obligation unconditional subject only to a valid engineer's certificate; DVS2 did not impliedly eliminate the bond issuer's liability or bar the principal from demanding on the bond; however the defendant raised an arguable defence that the engineer's certificate may have gone beyond the scope of his contractually permitted certification (including items not part of the bonded subject) or been given without proper exercise of discretion, so summary judgment was inappropriate.
3 May 2006

BEALE AND BEALE V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-6308

Citation

openlaw-7ff706b1_39fd_4db2_8ac3_9024537d6cad.pdf
Court

High Court

The second indemnity was not void for uncertainty: notwithstanding the lack of physical initials or attachment, the indemnity clearly and unambiguously operated to indemnify the Bank up to $300,000 in respect of the replacement bond and reflected the parties' intention; accordingly the Bank was entitled to summary judgment recovering the amount. The plaintiffs' claims against Castle Brown could not be resolved on affidavit because of genuine disputes of fact about the retainer and advice, so summary judgment against Castle Brown was declined.