New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repudiation of contract

Legal area

Court

22 May 2019

COPY SOLUTIONS EXPORTS LTD v FUJI/XEROX NZ LTD [2019] NZHC 1112

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1112
Court

High Court

The statement of claim did not give fair notice because it omitted essential particulars regarding formation and terms of the alleged agreements, the specific repudiatory conduct, loss calculation methodology, particulars of alleged misrepresentations, and the particular basis under CCLA s 24; accordingly the court ordered specified further particulars and, in the interests of justice, granted an extension of time for the defendant to file a statement of defence subject to deadlines for an amended statement of claim and filing of defence.
15 Oct 2018

KOP-COAT NEW ZEALAND LTD v INCODO LTD [2018] NZCA 430

Citation

[2018] NZCA 430
Court

Court of Appeal

No binding contract was formed because the agreement, a complex commercial document expressly requiring execution by specified officers of all parties, was only executed by Incodo; Kop-Coat Inc did not sign and Kop-Coat NZ was not validly executed by two directors and the general manager lacked actual or sufficient holding-out authority; accordingly appeal allowed and High Court judgment set aside. The court also held that pricing errors were not necessarily fatal, Kop-Coat's later conduct repudiated the May agreement, Incodo was justified in refusing the replacement, and damages quantificati…
18 Aug 2016

KOURA MINING LTD v GEOTECH LTD [2016] NZHC 1926

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1926
Court

High Court

The Court concluded there was no arguable, genuine and substantial dispute that the sums in the statutory demand were due and owing: the parties' contemporaneous email established payments were sync'd to the 1st of the month so December invoices were due; Geotech's disabling of equipment was not repudiation as it offered reinstatement on payment; the upfront payment could not be applied to defeat the demand; alleged non‑supply was minor and speculative; Koura failed to mitigate, so the statutory demand was not set aside.
10 May 2011

GRAEME JOHN INGRAM AND ELIZABETH KNEE V PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMITED SC SC 72/2010

Citation

GRAEME JOHN INGRAM AND ELIZABETH KNEE V PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMITED SC SC 72/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Because Patcroft unlawfully re-entered on 14 June and persisted in a repudiatory stance, that unretracted repudiation precluded Patcroft from relying on the lessees' subsequent non-payment on 15 June to validly cancel the lease; the lessees were justified in withholding payment and were entitled to pursue damages, so the High Court orders in their favour were restored.
11 Apr 2006

LEISUREWORLD LIMITED V CLIVE GRAHAM STEVENS AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001973

Citation

openlaw-4f080220_23c7_44b5_a349_05777aab6e67.pdf
Court

High Court

On the material before the court the plaintiff demonstrated a seriously arguable claim that the first and third defendants breached contractual restraints and the distribution agreement and that misleading statements were made; damages would be inadequate and the balance of convenience favoured granting interim injunctive relief against the first and third defendants (with the order against the fourth defendant held over).

New Zealand Case Law

COPY SOLUTIONS EXPORTS LTD v FUJI/XEROX NZ LTD [2019] NZHC 1112

KOP-COAT NEW ZEALAND LTD v INCODO LTD [2018] NZCA 430

KOURA MINING LTD v GEOTECH LTD [2016] NZHC 1926

GRAEME JOHN INGRAM AND ELIZABETH KNEE V PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMITED SC SC 72/2010

LEISUREWORLD LIMITED V CLIVE GRAHAM STEVENS AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001973