New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consideration

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2022

PARKLANE INFRASTRUCT Ltd v LU TRUSTEE Ltd [2022] NZHC 2702

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2702
Court

High Court

On an objective assessment of the access letter and surrounding communications a reasonable person would conclude the letter was a support/assurance for Parklane's discussions with KiwiBuild, not a grant of a binding legal interest; no enforceable contract was formed because there was no intention to be bound on essential terms and no consideration; Parklane did not establish estoppel; Parklane holds no easement; Parklane's caveats are invalid and must be removed.
4 Oct 2022

BORLASE v ROBERTSON ENGINEERING LTD [2022] NZHC 2533

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2533
Court

High Court

On the facts and viewing the email holistically in context, the appellant's email was a personal guarantee of CAL's indebtedness to REL, covering debts arising from time to time (including post‑date invoices) for unpaid lease/rental payments and related liquidation costs; the alleged equitable set-off was speculative and unsupported and therefore no arguable defence existed, so summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Aug 2022

TOLSTIKOV v IVANOV [2022] NZHC 2052

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2052
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because the defendant has a reasonably arguable defence that the January 2021 variation may have become conditional on the company obtaining finance (with interest payable in the interim) and there is a genuine issue whether interest was payable by Topcatch Limited or the defendant personally; these factual disputes prevent a finding that the defendant has no defence and therefore preclude summary judgment on the Amended Termination Sum and interest claims.
13 Apr 2022

CLARK v CLARK [2022] NZHC 786

Citation

[2022] NZHC 786
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff's sole claim is founded on loan agreements signed after the advances; material factual issues exist as to whether those agreements reflect the parties' contemporaneous intention, and there is credible evidence raising real doubt (possible sham, duress, misleading affidavit evidence, unworkable terms and lack of implementation) such that the defendant has a tenable defence and a full hearing is required.
31 May 2021

ASPHALT SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED v COLE JOHN LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1257

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1257
Court

High Court

The High Court held the written warranty was enforceable by CJL under s 12 CCLA, the warranty obliged Asco to prepare grades and ensure water flow to existing drainage structures, Asco's work was defective and liable for remediation costs, but under s 18(2) CCLA Asco was entitled to set-off the unpaid contract balance that would have been payable had the work been properly performed; accordingly the original damages award was reduced by that set-off resulting in a substituted award of NZD 50,089.65.
10 May 2021

SUN v WEI [2021] NZHC 1040

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1040
Court

High Court

The Court found that the plaintiff has an arguable case that consideration exists because the loans advanced and the granting of extended time to repay (forbearance to sue) can constitute consideration, and antecedent indebtedness may support the instruments as promissory notes under the Bills of Exchange Act; consequently it was not appropriate to strike out the claim or enter summary judgment for the defendants, and the caveat could not be removed as it rests on an arguable mortgage interest.
9 Apr 2021

KIM v OH [2021] NZHC 751

Citation

[2021] NZHC 751
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the defendants raised an arguable defence of contractual misrepresentation which operates as an equitable set-off and is sufficiently credible to require a trial; leave to apply for summary judgment was granted but the merits cannot be decided on affidavit evidence alone.
25 Nov 2020

MORISON v SAHA [2020] NZHC 3123

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3123
Court

High Court

Although the settled accounts established the partnership debt, the singular treatment of the appellant in the settlement deeds and the existence of a separate deed limiting recovery to $195,000 raised factual issues about the deeds' context and effect that could not properly be resolved on summary judgment; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the District Court judgment was quashed and remitted for trial.
28 Jan 2020

GLORIA JEAN’S COFFEES INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD v DABOKO LTD [2020] NZHC 29

Citation

[2020] 2 NZLR 488
Court

High Court

The Court applied New Zealand Court of Appeal authorities endorsing the 'practical benefit' approach to variations and found on the balance of probabilities that the May 2013 amendments produced a practical benefit to the franchisor (facilitation of funding by the franchisee's financier), therefore sufficient consideration existed and the agreement was validly varied in May 2013; Daboko's version is binding and Daboko owes unpaid franchise fees to 1 April 2018; specific performance was dismissed.
1 Oct 2018

CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB INCORPORATED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2018] NZHC 2569

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2569
Court

High Court

The Rules of Racing impose enforceable, reciprocal obligations and NZTR pays stakes (including GST) on behalf of clubs; trainers and riders therefore supply services to the Club on race day, stakes paid to successful trainers and riders are consideration (there is the necessary nexus/reciprocity), and accordingly the Club is entitled to claim GST input tax deductions for stakes payments to GST-registered trainers and riders.