New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undisclosed principal/agency

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2018

WOODROFFE LAW PARTNERSHIP v FAGALILO [2018] NZHC 2727

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2727
Court

High Court

Leave to join Ioritana Tonise was granted because there was a plausible evidential basis that he may have contracted with the plaintiff via the pastor's agency, Tonise had been actively involved in the costs dispute and opposed summary judgment, and the liberal joinder rules permit adding him so all matters can be resolved; costs were not awarded against him and the proceeding was transferred to the District Court under s 94 for efficiency.
15 Aug 2013

HERRON v WALLACE [2013] NZHC 2073

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2073
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to satisfy r12.4(5)(b) because his affidavit did not verify material allegations nor depose to a belief that defendants had no defence, and he failed to prove he was the trustee or had authority to bind the Churchside Trust; accordingly he did not show the defendants had no arguable defence that the debts vested in the Official Assignee or that he acted personally without authority, so summary judgment could not be granted.
11 Mar 2010

T & T DRAINAGE LTD V RENNELL & ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-001506

Citation

openlaw-deeccd37_2df1_4e14_9145_7ffc3dd4c6e8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the Rennells could recover personally because Mr Rennell acted as agent for undisclosed principals (the trustees) and retained personal liability; T & T breached an implied contractual and tortious duty by failing to take reasonable care (including failing to warn about winter risks) causing stone contamination and topsoil loss; remediation was a reasonable measure of loss given the property's specialised equestrian use so remediation costs were recoverable subject to quantified deductions for items of betterment and pre-existing contamination, and a 10% reduction for the…
22 Sept 2008

CONDON AND ORS V PARKINSON HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-000832

Citation

openlaw-e7291985_7033_4e1f_9688_740c90823af9.pdf
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the $500,000 was a loan from the Mark Condon Family Trust (via Mr Condon acting as agent) to the defendant repayable on sale/settlement of the Bishopdale units; the parties intended legal relations; the Trust (as undisclosed principal) may sue; defendant breached by failing to repay by 17 November 2006; plaintiffs recover outstanding principal of $200,000 plus special damages equal to interest paid to Westpac from 17 November 2006 to 16 August 2008 ($29,462.99); valuation fee and other consequential claims rejected.

New Zealand Case Law

WOODROFFE LAW PARTNERSHIP v FAGALILO [2018] NZHC 2727

HERRON v WALLACE [2013] NZHC 2073

T & T DRAINAGE LTD V RENNELL & ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-001506

CONDON AND ORS V PARKINSON HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-000832