New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Commission dispute

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2022

BUSINESS CONTROL (SCHWEIZ) AG v SHIBALOVA [2022] NZHC 484

Citation

[2022] NZHC 484
Court

High Court

An order for particular discovery was justified because the defendant's bank and property records were relevant to whether she or a family member received the recovered funds and therefore liable for the Commission; the records were likely to exist and proportional to the high value claim; accordingly refined categories of discovery were ordered and the defendant must file an affidavit and produce documents; on security for costs the court exercised discretion under r 5.45 to require the foreign plaintiff to pay further staged security of NZD 40,000 (bringing total security to NZD 60,000 incl…
11 Mar 2016

MACFARLANE v INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 404

Citation

[2016] NZHC 404
Court

High Court

The appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the first respondent orally agreed to reduce its commission to $50,000; contemporaneous telephone records and the absence of any credible explanation (such as a call from a different phone) undermined the appellants' account, so the District Court's factual conclusion was correct and must be upheld on appeal.
13 Sept 2013

RAPH ENGLE CONCEPTS LIMITED v SCL HOLDINGS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2410

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2410
Court

High Court

Judgment was entered against SCL Industries Limited Partnership on the fifth cause of action for €515,295.02; Holdings' summary judgment application on the remaining causes was adjourned part-heard because Holdings has sworn it did not receive project payments and limited discovery was required to test that assertion; REC cannot sustain its contractual claim against Holdings in respect of the Nestle project because the 2012 agreement applied to projects secured by Holdings and Holdings did not secure the Nestle project, so the fourth cause against Holdings fails.
23 Dec 2008

ST MARTINS LTD V ALDY AUCKLAND PTY LTD HC AK CIV2008-404-002179

Citation

openlaw-c8f9e10a_c99f_45d3_92c4_24a73592c0a5.pdf
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside in part because St Martins failed to raise a substantial dispute as to commissions for units 118 and 622 (those commissions are due and payable by St Martins), but did raise a substantial dispute as to the balance because there was insufficient evidence identifying the vendor or agency relationship for most of the approximately 70 sales and the marketing agreement was not shown to have been validly extended in writing for all sales.

New Zealand Case Law

BUSINESS CONTROL (SCHWEIZ) AG v SHIBALOVA [2022] NZHC 484

MACFARLANE v INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 404

RAPH ENGLE CONCEPTS LIMITED v SCL HOLDINGS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2410

ST MARTINS LTD V ALDY AUCKLAND PTY LTD HC AK CIV2008-404-002179