New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accord and satisfaction

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2018

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ANDERSON [2018] NZHC 1814

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1814
Court

High Court

The pleaded defence of accord and satisfaction was struck out because the only settlement agreement relied upon was between LWRI (in rec) and the defendant, made in full and final satisfaction of LWRI's claims only, contained no provision binding Westpac, and the defence did not allege Westpac approved or agreed to be bound; accordingly the defence disclosed no reasonably arguable case. The plaintiff was entitled to specified further particulars and to discovery of Florian bank statements for Jan 2005–Dec 2007; other discovery requests were refused for lack of demonstrated relevance.
28 Jun 2017

Devereux & Ors v Ngakuru [2017] NZHC 1451

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1451
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the plaintiffs' account and contemporaneous solicitor correspondence showing the parties agreed the defendant would both transfer the 40ha Block and pay one-half of the Company's debts; because the defendant did not pay his agreed half the factual basis for accord and satisfaction, estoppel and waiver failed and the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for the admitted debt of $653,495 plus interest.
6 Jun 2017

INTELACT LIMITED v FONTERRA TM LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1086

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1086
Court

High Court

The Court held the settlement agreement was a full and final settlement that discharged the plaintiffs' 2014 causes of action (an accord and satisfaction), clause 8 was an unenforceable agreement to negotiate for lack of certainty and thus could not preserve the plaintiffs' original claims, s93 of the Trade Marks Act provided a defence as to use of a registered mark, and the plaintiffs had not validly made time of the essence to cancel; accordingly the amended statement of claim was struck out and summary judgment entered for the defendants.
7 Dec 2016

WHITFIELD BRAUN LIMITED v FAWCETT [2016] NZHC 2926

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2926
Court

High Court

No binding accord and satisfaction was proved; the creditor was entitled to pursue enforcement including issuing a bankruptcy notice; because no 'proceeding' as defined by the High Court Rules was before the Court, Part 14 costs jurisdiction did not apply and Part 24 provides no basis for an affirmative costs award to the creditor for the bankruptcy notice; accordingly the application for costs failed and no costs order was made.
11 Nov 2016

GOLDENLIGHT ENTERPRISES LTD AND ORS v WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS [2016] NZHC 2703

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2703
Court

High Court

The settlement letter of 15 August 2016, read in its commercial and procedural context, constituted an accord and satisfaction: the parties agreed to discontinue claims and counterclaims with no issue as to costs and the plaintiffs are thereby prevented from commencing further proceedings against the defendants arising out of the same or substantially the same facts; notices of discontinuance must be filed accordingly.
10 Oct 2016

DEVEREUX v NGAKURU [2016] NZHC 2430

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2430
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant's accord and satisfaction defence, based on an oral meeting whose terms were contested and where contemporaneous emails and witness accounts conflicted, could not be categorically ruled out as non-arguable; the factual disputes about what was agreed and the legal effect of any agreement required an oral hearing and credibility assessment.
8 Jun 2016

ENGINI LIMITED v NZNET INTERNET SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZHC 1220

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1220
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the District Court's strike-out because the pleaded defence raised tenable legal grounds: third-party payment of consideration can, at the creditor's direction, validate an accord and satisfaction and equitable estoppel may operate as a shield; credibility and acquiescence are factual matters for trial and not appropriate to determine on strike-out.
10 Aug 2015

COX & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1878

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1878
Court

High Court

The parties reached a binding settlement which was properly characterised as an accord and satisfaction covering all outstanding matters including alleged representations; the plaintiffs repudiated the settlement by refusing to accept its scope and pursuing further claims, and therefore could not validly cancel it; estoppel and the prohibition on benefiting from one's own wrongdoing precluded the plaintiffs' cancellation and revival of original claims, so the defendant is entitled to judgment.
12 Sept 2014

KAYE v NORRIS WARD MCKINNON [2014] NZHC 2215

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2215
Court

High Court

Leave to amend was granted under r1.9 because the alleged accord and satisfaction arose during the trial, the defence would be determinative if proved and both plaintiffs were involved and available to give evidence, so no prejudice would result. The application to determine the affirmative defence as a separate question was refused because the judge was not satisfied the issue would be resolved speedily or that splitting the proceeding would in practice save time or expense given the matter was part heard and complexity as to who participated in communications.
9 Apr 2014

JAQUES v CRAZY TOWN LTD (IN LIQ) [2014] NZHC 718

Citation

[2014] NZHC 718
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of the evidence that Mr Jaques had actual authority from the applicant to negotiate and agree a settlement; the 17 April 2013 emails objectively must be read as settling the liability of both debtors; the payments made by Mr Jaques constituted satisfaction of that accord and satisfaction; accordingly Crazy Town was not a creditor in respect of the applicant when it issued the bankruptcy notice and the notice was set aside.