New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privity of contract

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2022

PARK LANE BUILDS LIMITED v SHIVA ECO HOMES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1438

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1438
Court

High Court

PLB does not have enforceable rights under the restrictive covenants because it is not a named covenantee, and clause 25 does not convert the covenants into contractual obligations owed to PLB; however PLB has an arguable contractual claim under clause 38 (consent required before on-sale prior to completion) and so the strike-out application was dismissed with leave to re-plead; an interim injunction to restrain sale was continued until further order on specified conditions (service on other affected landowners and purchaser, amended pleading, and financial information) because PLB raised a s…
23 Oct 2020

BIL v PRICEWATERHOUSE [2020] NZHC 2773

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2773
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r4.2 and r4.56 to order that Brierley Holdings Limited be joined as a plaintiff because the statutory criteria for joinder were satisfied and its presence was necessary to resolve all matters in dispute; however, the court refused to backdate the joinder because the usual rule is that joinder takes effect from the date of the order, the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient information on limitation implications, and the defendant expressly opposed retrospective effect.
6 Oct 2017

GLENVAR PROPERTY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v REYNOLDS [2017] NZHC 2463 [6 October 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2463
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the direct evidence of Ms Cui and Ms Lin over the liquidator's documentary inferences, held there was no resulting trust or liability on BDK for the $1,000, found the $130,000 payment to Ms Cui proved but applied s310 to set off the $801,000 paid by Ms Lin (acting as agent for Ms Cui) against Glenvar's claims, treated the $177,465.99 payments as reimbursements, and on that basis dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and entered judgment for the defendants.
29 Jul 2016

TAURANGA BRIDGE MARINA LTD v DU FALL, DU FALL AND DU FALL & ORS [2016] NZHC 1747

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1747
Court

High Court

The High Court is precluded by s17 of the Disputes Tribunals Act from determining the claims against the first defendants because a Tribunal claim was lodged first; licence holders who acquired transferred licences are not bound by the Management Deed by virtue of the Scheme or by mere participation because of privity of contract and lack of contractual incorporation of the Deed into individual licences; the definition of "operating expenses" in the licences (read in context with the Second Schedule and the Management Deed) covers maintenance/status quo and unforeseeable extraordinary managem…
19 May 2016

CHANG v LEE [2016] NZHC 1040

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1040
Court

High Court

On the proved facts the $275,000 advanced by Mr Chang was an advance/loan to be used to purchase Sunnynook and was given subject to an expectation of a ten-year term tied to employment assistance from Ms Wang; that arrangement created equitable/fiduciary obligations on Ms Wang and Ms Lee such that Mr Chang is entitled to repayment of the balance at the end of the ten-year period and an equitable charge over Sunnynook to secure that repayment; the defendant's set-off claim failed for lack of an enforceable debt and insufficient legal basis for indemnity.
18 Mar 2016

BODY CORPORATE NO 207715 v MCNISH [2016] NZHC 475

Citation

[2016] NZHC 475
Court

High Court

The District Court's finding that the lease did not create an enforceable promise in favour of the Body Corporate under s 4 Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 was correct and the appeal fails on the merits; on costs, a successful legally aided party is entitled to costs up to the amount of the legal aid grant and, because the legal aid grant ($7,200.49) was less than the scale 2B award, the appropriate costs award is the actual legal aid grant of $7,200.49.
3 Dec 2015

MANNING v TRIPLE STAR & EDGE CONSTRUCTION [2015] NZHC 3047

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3047
Court

High Court

The Court held MPL had pleaded sufficient factual basis, supported by available documents, to give a tenable claim that contractual rights in relation to the pool works vested in MPL (by novation, assignment, agency or estoppel), and therefore the contractual claim against Edge could not be summarily struck out and must proceed to trial.
2 Dec 2015

Campbell v Thomson [2015] NZHC 3026

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3026
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because there was a real dispute about whether the ancillary agreement released the defendant, insufficient and contested evidence to conclude as a matter of law that the Rylands cause of action could not succeed (uncertain legal status and insufficient technical evidence on risk/non-natural use), and factual issues over contractor conduct meant the negligence claim could not be finally determined on interlocutory evidence.
14 Jul 2014

TE WAIRUA O TE ORA LIMITED v TUHOE WAIKAREMOANA MAORI TRUST BOARD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1627

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1627
Court

High Court

On a strike out application the Court must assume the plaintiff's pleaded facts can be proved; given competing evidence about execution and approval of the lease/sublease and possible involvement of the Board in events leading to dispossession, the plaintiff's claims are not so clearly untenable as to be struck out and a full factual inquiry is required.
18 Feb 2014

DAILY FREIGHT (1994) LIMITED v MOSESE & Anor [2014] NZHC 217

Citation

[2014] NZHC 217
Court

High Court

The court found the two settlements with third parties did not release the first defendant from liability; accordingly the court entered judgment for the plaintiff as to liability and as to quantum for $4,449,967.90, and ordered interest at 5% on the net shortfall of $1,199,967.90 from the date of judgment until payment; costs were reserved for later determination.