New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agreement to agree

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2023

ACTION HELICOPTERS LIMITED v VAN ASH VENTURES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1623

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1623
Court

High Court

Relief against cancellation under s 253 PLA granted because, even assuming a breach of clause 58, the landlord's conduct materially contributed to the impasse, the tenant offered reasonable market terms to remedy the breach, there was no evidence of significant damage to the landlord, and cancellation would be a disproportionate response; without‑prejudice negotiations were privileged and excluded from evidence.
12 Oct 2020

B PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED v ECOTECH COMMERCIAL (NZ) LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2673

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2673
Court

High Court

There is a genuine issue to be tried about the character of the $200,000 payment — conflicting evidence on whether it was held on trust and refundable or an absolute payment to Ecotech — such that the insolvency jurisdiction should not determine the matter summarily; accordingly a stay and prohibition on advertising is warranted to allow ordinary proceedings to test the dispute.
18 Apr 2016

GIDDEN v IAG NEW ZEALAND LTD [2016] NZHC 948

Citation

[2016] NZHC 948
Court

High Court

The typed multi‑party outcome agreement was a binding contract because it established an objective, ascertainable process (PQS report, insurer review and negotiation within fixed timeframes) to determine rebuild costs; it was not an unenforceable agreement to agree and no plausible implied term preserved a right for insurer to revert to repair or to defer performance pending internal panel approval; insurer breached the agreement by refusing to present the final cash settlement and summary judgment entered for plaintiffs for $707,610.94 plus interest and declarations.
28 Sept 2010

TELSTRACLEAR LTD V KORDIA LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-1168

Citation

openlaw-686155a4_a5c2_4a57_8b14_f9c592cf5dfd.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to establish a strongly or very strongly arguable legal error in the arbitrator's implication of limited cooperative and information-provision terms; balancing the Gold and Resource discretionary factors (including parties' agreement to final arbitration, arbitrator's qualifications, commercial importance and prejudice from delay) weighed against granting leave. The Court granted a limited privacy restriction on court file access while publishing the judgment.
15 Oct 2008

MARY GRAY V PAUL STEVENSON AND KAREN GRAY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1935

Citation

openlaw-d3863505_b8fb_4c14_8dcf_f6e7725e9a8b.pdf
Court

High Court

The written mortgage fixed repayment in October 2007 and any alleged oral agreement to review or extend that term was too uncertain and unenforceable; the respondents’ counterclaim for lack of a Code Compliance Certificate was unquantified and therefore did not bar summary judgment; although there was evidence that could make duress arguable, the respondents subsequently affirmed the Term Loan Agreement by paying $10,000 (with knowledge it could only discharge the term loan), so the $10,000 was correctly applied to the term loan; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for $80,000 (mortg…
23 Aug 2007

S LEE V G RICKETTS HC AK CIV 2006-404-007888

Citation

openlaw-300cbcdb_96a2_4590_a745_b3c8286d8983.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly held that the defendant had not established a clear and complete answer on the affidavits: material factual disputes existed about whether the MOU was binding, whether the company rather than Ms Lee was the proper defendant, and whether Lionfire had novated obligations; thus summary judgment against the plaintiff was inappropriate.
19 Jul 2006

DESIGN AT SPACE LTD V JULIAN AND ANOR CA CA149/05

Citation

openlaw-c3b9b3ee_0d63_4511_aa09_dd9b508494cc.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

No concluded contract existed because clause 15 left identification of the home block — an essential matter — to future agreement; the area and boundaries were not agreed or objectively determinable at signing, oral evidence did not establish binding agreement and cannot be used to contradict the later written term, therefore the appeal fails.

New Zealand Case Law

ACTION HELICOPTERS LIMITED v VAN ASH VENTURES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1623

B PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED v ECOTECH COMMERCIAL (NZ) LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2673

GIDDEN v IAG NEW ZEALAND LTD [2016] NZHC 948

TELSTRACLEAR LTD V KORDIA LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-1168

MARY GRAY V PAUL STEVENSON AND KAREN GRAY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1935

S LEE V G RICKETTS HC AK CIV 2006-404-007888

DESIGN AT SPACE LTD V JULIAN AND ANOR CA CA149/05