New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privity

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2023

SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED v SEAN DAVID BRYAN [2023] NZHC 759

Citation

[2023] NZHC 759
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because Spark failed to demonstrate arguable errors of law or fact in the High Court judgment; genuine factual disputes remained on privity and attribution such that summary judgment was inappropriate, the issues were not of sufficient public importance to justify interlocutory appeal, delay was neutral, and the interests of justice did not favour granting leave.
20 Dec 2022

O’NEIL v BEATTIE [2022] NZHC 3504

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3504
Court

High Court

Most requests for further particulars were refused because the matters were either already admitted by the defendants, irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action, open‑ended, or concerned internal mechanics within defendants' control (eg how Hickory Investments(2013) Ltd would effect transfers). Limited particulars were ordered where necessary to clarify the claim: confirm plaintiffs' cash contribution, state whether asserted terms are express or implied, be explicit on timing of transfer upon title availability, and clarify Moby's capacity and reliance on the privity provisions; plaintiffs m…
9 Dec 2015

ZEST FOR REALTY LIMITED v COUMAT LIMITED [2015] NZHC 3130

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3130
Court

High Court

The deed of novation, signed and effective, substituted the defendant for WPDL and, given the director who signed had authority and knowledge, the defendant thereby adopted the agency acknowledgement and obligations; the agency agreement complied with s126 on the facts and the commission became payable when the purchaser's contract became unconditional on 4 February 2015, so summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.
12 Feb 2015

LEADING MEDIA LTD v WANG [2015] NZHC 148

Citation

[2015] NZHC 148
Court

High Court

The MOU was unenforceable because it was uncertain as to whether the operative clause relied on by the appellant (clause 1) was included in the final version and neither the appellant nor the respondent were parties to the final MOU; in any event, applying the objective test in light of the commercial context and contemporaneous communications, clause 1 cannot be interpreted to make the respondent liable for the New Lynn stock debt; appeal dismissed.
24 Mar 2014

BERGMAN v BERGMAN [2014] NZHC 555

Citation

[2014] NZHC 555
Court

High Court

Plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential onus to prove the share debt remains unpaid; contemporaneous documents (March 2010 agreement, 27 October 2010 accountant letter, 13 September 2011 signed acknowledgement and accounting entries) provided reasonably compelling evidence consistent with repayment, so the Court, assuming jurisdiction, refused to grant the declaratory relief sought and dismissed the claim.
28 Sept 2012

READY MARK LIMITED V JILL GRANT COA CA440/2011

Citation

COA CA440/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Family Court, by adopting the accountant's valuation that treated the Ready Mark work-in-progress (including the renovation debt) as irrecoverable, effectively determined Ms Grant was not liable; Ready Mark, as privy to Mr Grant, is estopped by res judicata from pursuing the same debt in later proceedings, so summary judgment was correctly refused and the defence is complete.
25 Jul 2012

STOKES FAMILY TRUST V INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE CO LTD HC AK CIV-2011-404-1317

Citation

openlaw-f44f55b2_b27a_471d_bba4_1b7e704ad946.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts the judge found that Mrs Colebrook intended to act on behalf of the RM Colebrook Family Trust when she entered the August 2007 sale and purchase agreement and, on the history and pattern of the trust's dealings, had inferred actual authority from the trust; therefore she was an undisclosed agent of the trust, the trustees were personally liable for failure to settle, and the trustee has a right of indemnity giving rise to an equitable lien over trust property which the plaintiffs may subrogate to enforce.
18 Nov 2011

READY MARK LIMITED V GRANT HC AK CIV-2010-404-008264

Citation

openlaw-0cf35d96_d972_458d_92b7_bcf7d46fb508.pdf
Court

High Court

Ready Mark was held to be the privy of Mr Grant for res judicata purposes; the Family Court valuation and orders necessarily determined that Ms Grant was not liable to repay the drawings to Ready Mark, so issue estoppel bars that claim; however the renovation debt was not determined in the Family Court and Ready Mark properly pleads an agreement to defer invoicing so the renovation causes of action were reinstated; the Ford Falcon claim remains struck out.
23 Dec 2009

SHEEHAN AND PATERSON AS TRUSTEES OF THE MARIST TRUST AND COLE AND ROSE AS TRUSTEES OF THE WAITEMATA TRUST, TOGETHER TRADING AS OTAHUHU JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP V WATSON AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2009-404-6079

Citation

openlaw-7d43ce7d_de6f_42bc_a4ec_a61211dab3ec.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that either by purposive construction (reading 'lessee' to include the lessee's employees) or by reading qualifying words into s269 to avoid absurdity, the Property Law Act 2007 precludes recovery from the lessee's employees for fire damage to leased premises; alternatively, even if the statute did not so operate, it would not be arguable in law that the employees owed a duty of care because the statutory and contractual insurance and vicarious liability regime made imposition of a personal duty unfair, unjust and unreasonable, and the proceeding was struck out.
24 Dec 2008

COVINGTON GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED V LIN (LILY) ZHONG AND ORS CA CA671/2007

Citation

openlaw-8719d41c_b654_45c6_80d4_72d1f5386096.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because the Associate Judge correctly found there was an arguable case that the parties intended the replacement transaction to be GST neutral and that clause 16.3 and the credit note could be interpreted or rectified to require Covington to account to Golden City for the $187,500 GST differential; material factual disputes and documentary evidence made summary judgment inappropriate and Golden City had standing to pursue the claim.