New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of contract

Legal area

Court

22 May 2023

HEALTHALLIANCE NZ LTD v HEWLETT-PACKARD NZ[2023] NZHC 1201

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1201
Court

High Court

Communications and documents produced to negotiate or confirm the acquisition of legal entitlements (assignments/indemnities) are not protected by litigation privilege under s56 because their dominant purpose is acquisition/confirmation of rights, not the marshalling of evidence or arguments for litigation; common interest privilege cannot operate in the absence of pre-existing privileged material to share; disclosure of the deeds did not waive privilege over distinct negotiation documents.
6 Nov 2018

ADVANCE APIARIES LIMITED v WAIPUNGA STATION LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2880

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2880
Court

High Court

Where a funder has a genuine antecedent legal or equitable interest in the subject contract (here effected by a November 2016 asset transfer within related companies), funding litigation in the name of the assignor is not champertous maintenance nor an abuse of process even if the assignment was imperfect or consent to assignment was not obtained; nondisclosure obligations for commercial funders do not automatically extend to intra-group commercial funding.
11 Aug 2015

RJ ZWARST, LT ZWARST and CJ SAXTON as Trustees of the RJ and LT Zwarst Family Trust v DA SAXTON [2015] NZHC 1888

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1888
Court

High Court

On the evidence before the Court the defendant failed to establish any tenable defence: the period of relevant delay was not attributable to the plaintiffs and did not produce prejudice sufficient to invoke laches, and the alleged misconduct by one trustee (forgery on unrelated documents) was not proven or sufficiently connected to deny the trust's remedy; accordingly summary judgment ordering specific performance was appropriate.
27 May 2015

CAN BUILD LTD v KIRKPATRICK and PURVIS as trustees of the LAURA KIRKPATRICK FAMILY TRUST [2015] NZHC 1161

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1161
Court

High Court

The judge found on the evidence (including contemporaneous payment claim documents) that the South Steel contract had been assigned to Can Build Limited; however both documents relied on by Can Build as payment claims failed to comply with s20 (payment claim 9 lacked sufficient identification and calculation detail and subsequent material could not cure that defect; payment claim 10 likewise failed to identify the works sufficiently), and therefore summary judgment could not be granted and the application was dismissed to allow the matter to proceed to trial.
26 Sept 2014

KAWARAU VILLAGE HOLDINGS LTD v NEO and ORS [2014] NZHC 2402

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2402
Court

High Court

Defendants second, third, fourth and fifth breached their sale and purchase agreements by failing to settle after receipt of settlement notices; plaintiff validly cancelled the contracts and is entitled to damages equal to the purchase price less deposits and the market value at cancellation, plus contractual penalty interest for the period between settlement date and cancellation and statutory interest under s 87 from cancellation to judgment, together with costs.
24 Sept 2014

YOON LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZSC 130

Citation

[2014] NZSC 130
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues did not raise matters of general or public importance and, on the facts, the District Court clearly had jurisdiction: the wasted costs claim was alternative and could not be combined with other claims to exceed the $200,000 limit, and the costs awards (including indemnity costs) were justified given the collateral, meritless nature of the judicial review challenge.
24 Jul 2009

SB PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V HOLDGATE AND ANOR CA CA453/2008

Citation

openlaw-b7f94bae_bab3_4e5e_90a5_ad0d85c1fbac.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 11(1) CRA permits an assignee to be sued for breaches of the assignor subject to the statutory cap in s11(2); s11(2) limits the assignee's liability to the objective value by which the assignee was enriched by performance of the assigned contract (the value to the assignee), and where the assignee derived no benefit from the assignment his liability is nil; further, the appellant's purported termination was invalid for failure to give the contractual five working day notice, so no foundation existed for the damages claim and the proof of debt was properly expunged on review under s89(…
27 Nov 2008

ERIC LIN, A.K.A. JIA JIE LIN V CHWEE PIN TONG AND TENG ZHEN ZHONG HC AK CIV 2007-404-006975

Citation

openlaw-fb1713fa_1edc_4dea_86ef_4945ac883a9d.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the dispute over whether the settlement and assignment included undisclosed variations and the proper interpretation of the documents involved factual and interpretive matters (including subsequent conduct) that could not be resolved on a summary judgment application; accordingly the plaintiff's claim was not shown to be without merit.
4 Jul 2008

HOLDGATE V BLOCCASSA LTD & ORS HC AK CIV-2005-404-002693

Citation

openlaw-b97e2360_6b23_4ebe_a311_e0b23e3326d0.pdf
Court

High Court

The deed of assignment did not, as a matter of law and absent novation, impose JR Construction Ltd's contractual liabilities on Mr Holdgate; consequently the Official Assignee erred in admitting SB Properties Ltd's proof of debt. The ISL and Acme proofs were properly admitted on the evidence and are upheld. An appeal under s89(5) is heard de novo with the court making its own assessment while noting the Assignee's decision.
2 Apr 2008

THE HOME MORTGAGE COMPANY LIMITED V BIDOIS AND ANOR HC TAU CIV-2006-070-988

Citation

openlaw-7dd50283_2357_4743_837e_1ada732e48bc.pdf
Court

High Court

Assignment was valid because the deed expressly allowed assignment to successors and lawful assigns and the contract was not of the rare personal type preventing assignment; the notice of assignment was sufficient; however the defendant raised an arguable factual defence of waiver based on an oral assurance that payment before 19 September 2005 would prevent action, so summary judgment could not be granted and factual findings after oral evidence are required.