New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Breach of loan agreement

  • 30 Mar 2011

    KING & ANOR V ASB BANK LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-000304

    Citation
    openlaw-63ae761d_afd9_423d_a623_74821c4cc58a.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The interim injunction was refused because, although a serious question to be tried exists (threshold passed), the balance of convenience and overall justice decisively favored the defendants: there was an unconditional above‑valuation contract able to settle imminently, plaintiffs' refinancing prospects were speculative and unquantified, there was an absence of income and rapidly accruing liabilities, damages were an adequate remedy and the plaintiffs' undertaking to support damages was weak; receivership appointment showed no serious legal infirmity.

    • Interim injunction
    • Discovery
    • Equitable estoppel
    • Misleading and deceptive conduct
    • Negligent misstatement
    • Breach of loan agreement

  • 31 Mar 2010

    SUNNYVALE PROPERTY TRUST LIMITED AND ORS V PROPERTY FINANCE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-106

    Citation
    openlaw-87200028_446b_4fb7_bd97_781ee5baa43f.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The definition of 'Expiry Date' in the loan agreements is ambiguous when read in context; there is a serious question to be tried that the loans were not callable prior to 31 October 2009 and therefore that the lenders may have breached the loan agreements by demanding repayment earlier; balance of convenience favours continuing the interim injunction pending determination because defendants face no irrecoverable loss while plaintiffs would suffer significant prejudice.

    • Mortgagee sale
    • Interim injunction
    • Contract interpretation
    • Breach of loan agreement
    • Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act
    • Duty to obtain best price (property law act)

  • 18 Dec 2009

    TOWERS V WILLIAMS HC AK CIV-2009-404-3191

    Citation
    openlaw-a174e6c2_62ac_4d56_8c25_2d55e6de993c.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    On the undisputed material, the MOU made the defendant the borrower and liable to repay the Advance even though the funds were paid to GNN; there is insufficient evidence to infer a variation substituting GNN as debtor and the estoppel defence fails for want of representation to the defendant, proven reliance, and specific detriment; clause 6's brief acknowledgement of trust does not, by itself, exclude ordinary personal liability of a trustee and does not raise a tenable limitation defence on summary judgment; accordingly the defendant has no substantial defence and summary judgment is appro…

    • Summary judgment
    • Breach of loan agreement
    • Estoppel
    • Rectification
    • Trustee liability
    • Substitution of debtor