New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitration clause enforcement

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2021

FLINTOFT v ONEFOREST LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2493

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2493
Court

High Court

The judge held that r 5.49 can be a standalone procedural basis to protest jurisdiction and seek a stay separate from art 8(1); the critical inquiry is whether the defendant objectively abandoned or waived the contractual right to arbitrate, which requires a contractual analysis; an arguable issue existed as to whether an inter-party reservation of rights communicated by email was sufficient to preserve the right to arbitrate despite filing an unqualified defence, and that arguable issue warranted leave to appeal.
13 Mar 2020

TAUPO CAR CLUB INCORPORATED v TMP LIMITED [2020] NZHC 495

Citation

[2020] NZHC 495
Court

High Court

The arbitration clause remained prima facie operative because TMP had not repudiated either the main contract or the arbitration agreement; TMP accepted it was bound by the contract and the dispute concerned interpretation of participation levies rather than a refusal to perform the contract; therefore under cl 8(1) Schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 the Court must stay proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration.
29 Nov 2018

MAYHEW v FUTURE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS LTD (formerly SEALEGS CORPORATION LTD) [2018] NZHC 3112

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3112
Court

High Court

The Court ordered a temporary stay of the entire proceeding pending the arbitration of the disputes comprised in the plaintiffs' second, fourth and fifth causes of action because those causes are subject to operative arbitration clauses and because there is substantial factual and legal overlap between those arbitrable claims and the claims against non‑signatories (causes 1,3,6). The stay was justified to avoid duplication, inefficient use of resources, the real risk of inconsistent findings, and potential oppression to defendants and privies; Article 8(1) mandated a stay of the arbitrable cl…
19 Dec 2017

PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LIMITED v OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 3230

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3230
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because OMV demonstrated at least one reasonably arguable legal error in the High Court's interpretation of cl 44.3 in relation to the arbitration clause, the interlocutory decision had a degree of finality affecting forum, and the question has wider practical importance warranting Court of Appeal guidance; leave was conditional on procedural requirements and security for costs.
21 Dec 2015

DEPENDABLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v JUNNAN LI [2015] NZHC 3355

Citation

(2015) 23 PRNZ 145
Court

High Court

The Court must stay the proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration under Article 8(1) because the arbitration clause validly covers the dispute and the defendant had not made a disqualifying 'first statement on the substance of the dispute' or otherwise waived the right to arbitrate; interim without‑notice orders remain appropriate and continue until the final arbitral award subject to any tribunal alteration and specified court conditions.
10 Mar 2015

R T VINCENT LTD v WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LTD [2015] NZHC 424

Citation

[2015] NZHC 424
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for summary judgment was refused because the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the defendant had no arguable defence: material factual and legal disputes existed about the contractual basis for payment (hourly charge-up versus measure-and-value), invoices covered mixed categories of work, key factual witnesses were not before the Court and the affidavits were insufficient to resolve those disputes on summary judgment, therefore an urgent trial was directed instead.
17 Jul 2014

DANONE ASIA PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTE LTD v FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LTD [2014] NZHC 1681

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1681
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and r 15.1(3) to grant a stay because the Danone plaintiffs' claims substantially overlap with and are derivative of the contractual dispute between Danone AP and Fonterra governed by an arbitration clause; parallel proceedings would cause duplication, disproportionate cost, risk inconsistent findings and be oppressive to FCGL; the arbitration should go first and any remaining issues may be pursued in Court after the arbitration or if the stay is lifted.
16 Aug 2011

RICCARTON CLUB INCORPORATED V MAJESTIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-001553

Citation

openlaw-7202da6d_48bf_468a_a7f3_ecd2dc011c4f.pdf
Court

High Court

Interim relief against the defendant's cancellation was granted because the plaintiff demonstrated an arguable case, the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the lease until arbitration or agreement given the imminent lease expiry and substantial sum payable to the plaintiff on termination, and the defendant's financial position was protected by conditions requiring payment of rent and monthly contributions towards outgoings.
12 Aug 2008

HARRISON V BELL HC AK CIV 2008-488-000511

Citation

openlaw-d35062df_915b_4211_b3d5_c1f28af9c934.pdf
Court

High Court

Disputes concerning accounting fee, sickness adjustment and alleged removal of property were held to fall within clause 53 of the partnership agreement; because the respondent would not agree to an arbitrator the court properly appointed John Carlaw Hagen as sole arbitrator under article 11 of the schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996, and awarded costs to the applicant on a 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the registrar.
12 Dec 2007

ARLIDGE V LIGHTIN' UP FILM SERVICES & ANOR HC WN CIV 2007-485-1102

Citation

openlaw-ff2fb39b_43f9_4ba7_b439_db061c3bce37.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed in part: the High Court set aside the District Court's rent quantum judgment because contractual arbitration must determine the reviewed rent once invoked; however the District Court's award of indemnity/solicitor-client costs against the guarantor is upheld because the guarantee and lease clauses unambiguously expose the guarantor to full indemnity costs incurred in enforcement and there was no evidence the costs were unreasonable.