New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement agreement construction

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2022

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD [2022] NZHC 2408

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2408
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted in respect of the strike out decision on MB Technology's first cause of action because the judge's construction of the settlement agreement had material significance and could materially narrow trial scope; leave to appeal was refused in respect of Orbis' contention about s34 because that issue required trial construction and did not justify interlocutory appeal.
22 Jul 2022

HERBERT v USAR NAPIER LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1783

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1783
Court

High Court

The applications to set aside the bankruptcy notices were dismissed because the applicants failed to show a tenable basis to challenge the underlying judgments: Lunn's covering email did not exclude personal liability but at most indicated an indemnity/right of recourse to trust assets, and Herbert's alleged cross-claim was not reasonably arguable and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal; accordingly the bankruptcy notices remain valid.
10 Jun 2021

ELLIOT v VANDENBERG [2021] NZHC 1378

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1378
Court

High Court

The settlement deed did not bar the respondent from relying on the appellant's pre-deed conduct in a Harassment Act application; alternatively the appellant's post-deed conduct in October 2019 alone constituted harassment justifying a five‑year restraining order; the High Court granted extension of time to appeal but dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent on a 2B basis due to exceptional circumstances despite appellant's legal aid.
24 Apr 2017

MILLSTONE GRAZING LIMITED v MYOAK HOLDINGS LIMITED [2017] NZHC 773

Citation

[2017] NZHC 773
Court

High Court

Clause 2 of the settlement agreement unambiguously made the option to purchase prospectively applicable only to Lots 12 and 15 after completion of Stage 1 and after the further subdivisions contemplated in Stages 2-4 (or variations thereof); completion of those further subdivisions was a condition precedent to the option arising and Myoak had no obligation to give notice or include Lot 16 where those stages were not completed, therefore Millstone's claims failed.

New Zealand Case Law

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD [2022] NZHC 2408

HERBERT v USAR NAPIER LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1783

ELLIOT v VANDENBERG [2021] NZHC 1378

MILLSTONE GRAZING LIMITED v MYOAK HOLDINGS LIMITED [2017] NZHC 773