New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Put option

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2013

CAREY and ANOR v SMITH and ORS [2013] NZHC 2291

Citation

(2013) 10 NZBLC 99
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs lacked the necessary right to immediate possession because the sale and buy-back agreement contractually restrained possessory rights until expiry or cancellation and, in any event, the transaction was not in the ordinary course of business and was subject to a perfected bank GSA (and functioned as an unregistered security interest); therefore conversion and trespass claims against defendants fail and judgment is entered for defendants.
29 Oct 2010

BIRNIE CAPITAL PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED V WILLIAM NORMAN BIRNIE AND ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-003000

Citation

openlaw-a089c320_6a62_4500_81ca_48eb7b1efe4e.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered in the sum of $82,000 (60% of assessed potential costs and disbursements), payable to the Registrar, with staged payments of $41,000 within 14 days and $41,000 by 1 February 2011; alternatives in the form of undertakings acceptable to defendants were permitted and failure to provide security or acceptable undertakings will result in a stay of the proceedings; the court exercised its unfettered discretion weighing a cautiously favourable view of the plaintiff's case, the defendants' risk of non‑recovery, and the availability of funders to meet security.
20 Jul 2010

BIRNIE CAPITAL PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED V WILLIAM NORMAN BIRNIE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-3000

Citation

openlaw-6f9bbfad_10ac_4ea5_b443_81e37723d4a9.pdf
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by allowing the High Court proceeding to advance, the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored progressing the case in light of the plaintiff's imminent financial difficulty and need to preserve an effective remedy, and those considerations outweighed the defendants' arguable prospects on appeal; accordingly the Court granted a priority fixture and set the trial date.
22 Apr 2010

PETERS & ORS V BIRNIE & ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8119

Citation

openlaw-a7efb446_b358_4e85_975b_8d7114b9f6e1.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave under s165 granted because on an overview a prudent business person would pursue the derivative claim: there is a sufficient likelihood of success, the potential recovery ($8m avoided and up to $19m recoverable) outweighs litigation costs, and it is in the company's interests; applications for a mandatory interim injunction and immediate declaratory relief were refused for procedural and substantive reasons.
18 Jun 2003

DENT And Ors V HERBERT CA CA 243/O2

Citation

openlaw-92f12dc0_786b_47f3_8aef_bcba779620bd.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The respondent failed to establish any evidential foundation for the alleged agency, oral condition or indemnity and provided no factual basis for the Takeovers Code defence; therefore no genuine triable issue existed and summary judgment for the appellant for the sum due under the put option was appropriate.

New Zealand Case Law

CAREY and ANOR v SMITH and ORS [2013] NZHC 2291

BIRNIE CAPITAL PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED V WILLIAM NORMAN BIRNIE AND ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-003000

BIRNIE CAPITAL PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED V WILLIAM NORMAN BIRNIE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-3000

PETERS & ORS V BIRNIE & ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8119

DENT And Ors V HERBERT CA CA 243/O2