New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonable endeavours

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2022

SOUTH ISLAND INVESTMENTS LTD v CENTURIA PROPERTY HOLDCO LTD [2022] NZHC 1672

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1672
Court

High Court

Defendant ordered to pay costs for both hearings because the defendant's abandonment of a pleading (paragraph 22.3) at the first hearing caused adjournment and the need for a second hearing; plaintiff's claimed costs for the second hearing were reduced by 25% because plaintiff did not succeed on six remedies dependent on 'reasonable endeavours'; costs of the plaintiff's second amended statement of claim are reserved under r 7.77 and not awarded now; costs for two memoranda and sealing are allowed (sealing to be claimed when incurred); total immediate costs awarded $13,623 plus disbursements $…
17 Mar 2022

SOUTH ISLAND INVESTMENTS LTD v CENTURIA PROPERTY HOLDCO LTD [2021] NZHC 504

Citation

SOUTH ISLAND INVESTMENTS LTD v CENTURIA PROPERTY HOLDCO LTD [2021] NZHC 504
Court

High Court

Leave was granted limited to the discrete contractual interpretation issue raised in paragraph F of the second amended statement of claim because (1) the delay in bringing the leave application was satisfactorily explained in the context of the defendant's pleadings and the case timeline, (2) the interpretation issue is reasonably arguable and amenable to summary determination (it does not require the fact‑intensive inquiry necessary to determine whether 'reasonable endeavours' were used), (3) there is no risk of miscarriage of justice in deciding that issue now, and (4) determining that issu…
1 Jul 2020

FOCUS CONSTRUCTION INTERIORS LTD v SPACEWORKS DESIGN GROUP LTD [2020] NZCA 269 [1 July 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZCA 269
Court

Court of Appeal

Clauses 3–6 imposed reciprocal obligations to use reasonable endeavours and act in good faith to achieve $3m of referred work; those obligations do not amount to an absolute or best endeavours duty nor require sacrificing commercial interests. Compliance is assessed both by aggregate provision of opportunities and by examination of specific projects or classes of projects. The evidence showed Spaceworks referred opportunities of about $6.5m, provided explanations for non‑referrals, and Focus did not identify any instances where those explanations were not genuine or unreasonable; accordingly…
28 May 2019

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD v BP OIL NEW ZEALAND LTD & ORS [2019] NZHC 1187

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1187
Court

High Court

The court found a contract for supply existed on the express and implied terms and, applying BP Refinery criteria and contextual factors, implied a term that Z must take all reasonable endeavours to supply Air NZ's fuel requirements; an unqualified continuous supply obligation was not reasonable or commercially coherent in context; the court also found Z satisfied the reasonable endeavours obligation and the contracts were not frustrated.
28 Jun 2018

NZ IRON SANDS HOLDINGS LIMITED v TOWARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1571

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1571
Court

High Court

The Court declined the separate questions and the non-party discovery application. A preliminary separate hearing was refused because correct interpretation of clause 15 required consideration of the factual matrix and negotiation history, there was real risk of evidential overlap and demarcation difficulties, potential for duplicative hearings and appeals, and uncertain time savings. The non-party discovery application was refused as premature and unnecessary because relevant documents should be obtainable from parties under tailored discovery and the application risked being a fishing exped…
28 Mar 2018

FOCUS CONSTRUCTION INTERIORS LTD v SPACEWORKS DESIGN GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 570

Citation

[2018] NZHC 570
Court

High Court

Application for particular discovery allowed in part: court ordered defendants to verify and produce (by affidavit) existence or past possession of relevant contracts and electronic communications (excluding text and instant messages) relating to out-of-Auckland "full projects" and projects where Spaceworks' involvement was joinery or furniture supply for the period 8 February 2010 to 18 July 2016; pre-2010 documents, defendants' personal financial records and broad banking/management accounts were not ordered because they were not sufficiently relevant or would be disproportionate.
1 Nov 2016

MORTRE HOLDINGS LIMITED V ANCL INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2016] NZCA 494

Citation

(2016) 18 NZCPR 268
Court

Court of Appeal

Although Mortre had a seriously arguable equitable contingent interest capable of attracting a caveat, the caveat was lodged in breach of an express no-caveat clause and there was no evidence of repudiation, fraud or other disentitling conduct by ANCL; accordingly the court properly exercised its discretion to remove the caveat and dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal.
27 Jun 2016

MORTRE HOLDINGS LIMITED v ANCL INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1413

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1413
Court

High Court

Although Mortre held a contingent equitable interest capable of being caveatable, the express contractual 'no caveat' clause was enforceable and Mortre contracted away the right to lodge a caveat; Mortre failed to prove disentitling conduct by ANCL (no clear breach of the reasonable endeavours obligation and no present threat to sell in breach of the contract), therefore the court exercised its discretion to remove the caveat and grant ANCL the conventional remedy.
8 Jul 2011

IRONSANDS INVESTMENTS LTD V TOWARD INDUSTRIES LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-004879

Citation

openlaw-f5b4178a_6a01_4224_b8db_d8e0bd4381af.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court applied the narrow review permitted by Arbitration Act Article 34: most of CKI's grounds failed because the arbitrator applied correct legal principles and had probative evidence for his findings; Article 34(6) can treat breaches of natural justice as public policy but the Court will exercise discretion and not set aside awards for minor or non-prejudicial breaches; CKI's application to set aside the interim award and remedies ruling was struck out as untenable except for a reasonably arguable procedural unfairness ground relating to the arbitrator's finding on causation (that OIO c…
16 Jun 2011

I-HEALTH LTD V ISOFT NZ LTD HC AK CIV-2006-404-007881

Citation

openlaw-03c05106_b57f_443f_a904_57cde2ebdf2b.pdf
Court

High Court

Application for further particulars dismissed. The amended statement of claim already provides sufficient particulars under r 5.26 as to background sales; particulars sought concerning specific unpursued customer opportunities are, in substance, evidence and unduly onerous given the scale of possible customers and forthcoming exchange of briefs; the quantification of lost opportunity in paragraph 75 meets the requirements of rr 5.32 and 5.33 insofar as precise enumeration of every lost sale is impractical and experts will quantify loss at trial. Costs awarded to plaintiff on a 2B basis plus d…