New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency agreement

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2021

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v SOFT TECHNOLOGY JR LTD [2021] NZHC 3069

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3069
Court

High Court

The court held clause 19 indemnity costs were recoverable because the claimed costs were reasonably incurred under the Black v ASB Bank test; s126 did not bar recovery of the claimed costs or interest as it creates a barrier to recovery of commission but does not invalidate the agreement; interest under clause 1.4 is payable; accordingly Soft Tech was ordered to pay indemnity costs of NZD 400,000, disbursements of NZD 42,491 and associated interest, and specified paragraphs of the second judgment remained redacted for commercial sensitivity.
12 Jun 2020

MONOCRANE (2010) LTD v COOPER & CO REAL ESTATE LTD [2020] NZHC 1319

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1319
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were not awarded because the indemnity clause did not plainly and unambiguously establish entitlement to solicitor/client costs for the steps taken and, critically, the respondent failed to provide invoices or itemisation so the court could not be satisfied the claimed indemnity costs were reasonably incurred; instead the court awarded scale costs on a 2B basis reduced by 20% plus disbursements because respondent was largely successful on liability though it overstated the demand quantum.
9 Oct 2019

PERERA v SINGH [2019] NZHC 2571

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2571
Court

High Court

The oral Agency Agreement and the later Power of Attorney/Deed created fiduciary obligations owed by the defendants to the plaintiff; defendants breached those duties by making numerous unauthorised withdrawals and transfers, failing to account and pay over rental income, improperly withdrawing insurance funds and failing to pay premiums and maintain adequate accounts; the relationship was not a binding commercial contract for Limitation Act purposes; equitable compensation was appropriate to restore plaintiff to the position he would have occupied but for the breaches and the court awarded d…
6 Sept 2019

PERERA v SINGH [2019] NZHC 2246

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2246
Court

High Court

Court found the 1991 Agency Agreement created fiduciary obligations (not a legally enforceable commercial contract) in respect of the Northland Property and insurance; Mrs Singh participated in management; the Krull Street property was not part of the agency; the March 2004 Power of Attorney created additional fiduciary duties; defendants breached fiduciary duties by making numerous unauthorised transfers, failing to account, withdrawing insurance funds and failing to make/notify premium payments; Limitation Act defences failed; plaintiff entitled to equitable compensation of principal loss a…
13 Aug 2019

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v SOFT TECHNOLOGY JR LTD [2019] NZHC 1965

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1965
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for summary judgment was refused because Soft Tech did not satisfactorily explain its delay, issues of material fact existed (notably the alleged informal arrangement over Lot 10 and the factual basis for treating ATEED as an associate), and Soft Tech failed to demonstrate sufficiently strong preliminary merits to justify depriving JLL of discovery and a full hearing; summary disposal was therefore inappropriate.
1 Feb 2019

CLUB MARINE (NZ) LIMITED v QUADRANT YACHTS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 48

Citation

[2019] NZHC 48
Court

High Court

Quadrant was not insured under the Transit Policy and the agency agreement did not operate to extend insurance to Quadrant for its own negligence or contractual breaches; therefore Quadrant had no arguable cause of action against Club Marine and summary judgment in favour of Club Marine was appropriate.
19 Oct 2017

MACKYS REAL ESTATE LTD T/A BAYLEYS IN THE NORTH v WEBSTER [2017] NZHC 2546

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2546
Court

High Court

The court held the agency agreement was not void for uncertainty and the plaintiff complied with the Act; however there is no sufficient contractual or extrinsic evidence that the defendants as directors signed in a personal (dual) capacity so summary judgment is declined against them in respect of the two company-owned properties, while the first and second defendants, having signed as registered proprietors/trustees and warranted authority, are personally liable for the commission on the Beejay property and summary judgment is entered against them for that liability (quantum to be determine…
14 Apr 2015

COAST TO COAST LTD v SMYTH [2015] NZHC 687

Citation

[2015] NZHC 687
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are tenable defences and genuine factual disputes: evidence supports a reasonable claim that the trustees relied on a local seven day protocol and on representations by the incoming agent which may found an estoppel or imply a contractual variation; the application raised significant issues about the protocol's existence, scope and effect and the potential for double liability that require resolution at trial or with all parties joined, so there was a real question to be tried.
21 Jul 2014

TENNYSON PROPERTIES (2009) LIMITED v RESORT BROKERS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1700

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1700
Court

High Court

Although the agency form met the formal requirements of s126 in execution, there was a genuine and substantial factual dispute as to whether the client named in the agreement was Tennyson or Ms Young personally; that dispute was sufficient under s290(4)(a) to set aside the statutory demand rather than resolve the competing factual issues in the Companies Act jurisdiction.
15 Sept 2010

BRENT ADAIR MATHEWS V CP REALTY (PN) LIMITED HC PMN CIV 2010-454-276

Citation

openlaw-9b4d654d_6e6b_4514_a02c_f8fa8bec2863.pdf
Court

High Court

The agent was instrumental in securing the Cripps offer which directly led to the parties' s21 settlement; a s21 settlement can constitute a sale for commission purposes; Mathews, having warranted he had authority of all vendors, is liable for the commission calculated on the total consideration (including stock).