New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variations

Legal area

Court

31 Jan 2020

SECURITY SYSTEMS LIMITED v SMART CONTROLS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 41

Citation

[2020] NZHC 41
Court

High Court

Although the parties had contracted on the basis of a quote, Fletcher's approval and payment of Smart's invoices (including release of retentions) meant Security had no realistic overpayment loss to pursue; Security also failed to plead and prove any distinct loss it incurred completing quoted works, so Smart was entitled to payment of the approved invoices and Security's counterclaim otherwise failed.
12 Feb 2019

ACM REMOVALS LTD v SOUTHERN DEMOLITION AND SALVAGE LTD [2019] NZHC 124

Citation

[2019] NZHC 124
Court

High Court

The 12 November quotation supplemented but did not exclude the contractor's standard terms; the contract required removal of asbestos identified in the Optimum Report (including lift shafts to the basement and asbestos on tops of I-beams and pillars identified as 'areas of concern'); ACM Removals failed to perform a substantive contractual obligation by not removing asbestos from the tops of the I-beams and therefore Southern Demolition was entitled to withhold final payments and to terminate; the contested variation claims lacked the required written agreement and quantum meruit does not ass…
28 Jul 2017

JEFFERSON v STRAW HOMES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1766

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1766
Court

High Court

The High Court affirmed the District Court: the inserted contract price was an objective estimate for managed labour (based on 278 m2) and did not create a fixed price contract; the appellants failed to prove causation and loss from the respondents' negligent conduct and therefore were not entitled to damages; the proposed valuation evidence was not admissible because it was not fresh and would not materially assist causation/quantification of loss.
21 Jul 2017

FOWLER HOMES SOUTHERN LAKES LTD v BOSE and WOOD [2017] NZHC 1707

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1707
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the court concluded it was arguable that the bulk of the payment claims (PC7C and the variations part of PC8) did not substantially comply with s 20(2)(c) and (e) — they failed to identify the relevant construction work and to indicate the manner of calculation sufficiently to allow a reasonable payer to respond; given those arguable defects the defendants had an arguable defence so summary judgment could not be entered for the principal sum (the modest compliant p.c. sums claim was insufficiently separable to justify judgment).
8 Dec 2014

COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v LYON ELECTRICAL LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3116

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3116
Court

High Court

The Court held that the majority of Lyon's payment claims substantially complied with the Construction Contracts Act 2002, Complete did not provide compliant payment schedules within the required time for those claims (or provided non-compliant responses), and Complete had waived any contractual requirement for written variation approvals by its conduct and prior payments; accordingly there was no substantial dispute to set aside the statutory demand (subject to deducting NZD 18306), so the application to set aside was dismissed and the statutory demand remained enforceable with an extended c…
13 Nov 2014

CONCRETE STRUCTURES (NZ) LIMITED v NZ WINDFARMS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2818

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2818
Court

High Court

Award costs to defendant on a 2B basis with a 25% uplift for attendances from 4 June 2014 and approval for two counsel because the final Calderbank offers exceeded the plaintiff's recovery, the principal winter variation claim was weak and poorly pleaded, and rejection of the late but substantial offers was unreasonable; allow electronic support disbursement subject to affidavit; disallow Mr Fletcher disbursement and settlement conference attendances; require remaining affidavits for quantification.
3 Sept 2014

CONCRETE STRUCTURES (NZ) LIMITED v NZ WINDFARMS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2118

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2118
Court

High Court

Apply the contract's express allocation of risk and variation valuation procedures: weather-related time costs are presumptively borne by the contractor under the special conditions; a variation relaxing specification does not alone create entitlement to time-related costs where valuation and notice procedures were not complied with; where the principal's default (failure to obtain consents) caused suspension the principal must pay; unreasonable deductions from certified payments attract contractual interest under an objective reasonableness test.
3 Sept 2013

VAN DER WAL BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LIMITED v HANHAM [2013] NZHC 2284

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2284
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the District Court erred in implying a term permitting the owners to terminate the charge‑up contract in the circumstances. The contract could operate without the implied term, clause 33 addressed additional council‑required work and the BP Refinery/Belize tests for implication were not satisfied (term not necessary for business efficacy, uncertain and unfairly shifted risk to the builder). Clause 30 did not permit deletion of such a substantial part of the works. The matter was remitted to the District Court for further proceedings on quantum a…