New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2023

DELAMERE v LIU [2023] NZCA 427

Citation

[2023] NZCA 427
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court: the three written agreements were independent; appellant breached express terms of the term deposit agreement by causing withdrawals without respondent's consent; an implied term requiring return of the $350,000 deposit if the residency application failed was necessary to give the arrangement business efficacy and was implied; appellant was personally liable for procuring the transfers; and damages reflect the loss of the deposit (plus interest and costs).
2 Aug 2023

HONG v KIM [2023] NZHC 2045

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2045
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant trustees have arguable and respectable defences (including lack of authority, absence of notice, and contested ratification by the solicitor/director) raising mixed questions of fact and law that must be resolved at trial, and the applicant did not identify an error of sufficient public or legal importance to justify appeal under s56(3).
31 May 2023

HAGAMAN v HAGAMAN [2023] NZHC 1340

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1340
Court

High Court

The Court applied the purpose test under s54 Evidence Act 2006 and authorities (Balabel; Three Rivers) and concluded that several disputed documents were privileged because they were confidential communications made as part of the continuum for obtaining or providing legal advice; one document (HAG.005.00438) raised disputed facts about joint instruction and confidentiality and therefore the validity of privilege was adjourned to the substantive hearing; the estate's ability to maintain privilege under s66 and the trusts' separate claims were reserved for further argument where necessary.
27 Apr 2023

JDA CO LIMITED v AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2023] NZSC 41

Citation

[2023] NZSC 41
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the case turns on specific factual findings made concurrently by the courts below concerning intention to insure and late declaration, the premium declaration clause is mandatory and operates as a promissory warranty under the Marine Insurance Act 1908, ATL was unlikely to be the insurers' agent on the facts, and the issues do not raise matters of general or public importance with sufficient prospects of success.
5 Apr 2023

MULTISTOP LIMITED v INNOVATE CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2023] NZHC 748 [5 April 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 748
Court

High Court

The defendant's late assertion that ICC was only a 'go-between' and that contracts were with B&R is unsupported by contemporaneous documents and communications (invoices addressed to ICC, ICC signage on site, ICC emails and payment promises) and is inherently implausible; accordingly there is no reasonably arguable defence and summary judgment is appropriate in favour of Multistop for the unpaid invoices, interest and costs.
30 Mar 2023

DAVEY v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZCA 86

Citation

[2023] NZCA 86
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension refused because there was a significant unexplained delay, applicant had been represented and could not credibly claim ignorance of appeal rights, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked sufficient merit (issues were previously considered and rejected and agency claim untenable), and granting an extension would prejudice BNZ.
9 Nov 2022

JDA CO. LTD v NIKKYO CO. LTD [2022] NZCA 532

Citation

[2022] NZCA 532
Court

Court of Appeal

Liability under the open marine policy required (1) that an exporter intended to insure with AIMS at the time the insured interest attached and (2) that vehicles intended to be insured through AIMS were declared in the monthly declaration for the month in which they were received into pre-shipment holding yards; the monthly declaration obligation was a promissory warranty under s34 Marine Insurance Act 1908 and failure to make a compliant declaration discharged the insurers from liability from the date of breach; on the facts JDA's single vehicle claim failed for late declaration, and Nikkyo…
27 May 2022

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD v NEW DAWN HOLDINGS LTD [2022] NZHC 1118

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1118
Court

High Court

Summary judgment against NDHL and C K Y Chu refused because there is a real, arguable triable issue about the legal status of the loan funds while held in the solicitor's trust account and the scope of the solicitor's duties and agency during the interim period; summary judgment against the solicitor J S T Nguy on liability and on quantum was appropriate because he consented to liability, the quantum is certain, and allegations that Westpac contributed to its loss were not supported and legally unsustainable.
26 May 2022

MY TEMPLAR LTD v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 1189

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1189
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because applicant failed to establish a genuine and substantial dispute: contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence credibly support the respondent's position that the deceased purchased and owned the yacht and that MY Templar recorded and accepted a debt; no credible evidence of a common intention or traceable advance sufficient to establish a resulting trust or agency; cash advances calculation was supported by the estate's analysis, so statutory demand stands.
12 Apr 2022

THE CANYON VINEYARD LIMITED v CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 749 [12 April 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 749
Court

High Court

Strike out application dismissed because the appellant did not establish it was contractually bound by clause 39; there was insufficient evidence to treat CVL as principal under common law or s182 Companies Act; factual uncertainties about the purchaser and agent relationship made the matter unsuitable for summary disposal and the appeal could not be characterised as clearly untenable.