New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contra proferentem rule

Legal area

Court

23 Aug 2010

CHANG V LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7820

Citation

openlaw-7b0cc3f5_7480_4842_be74_5695f457673e.pdf
Court

High Court

The endorsement's phrase "execution or implementation of investment advice or investment decisions" does not extend to the provision of advice; it refers to acts of putting into effect existing advice or decisions. Therefore the policy exclusion applied to the plaintiffs' claim for diminution in value of securities arising from alleged negligent advice, Lumley had no realistic prospect of liability, and leave under s9(4) was properly refused.
16 Apr 2010

TOTARA INVESTMENTS LIMITED V CRISMAC LIMITED SC 75/2009

Citation

TOTARA INVESTMENTS LIMITED V CRISMAC LIMITED SC 75/2009
Court

Supreme Court

The loan agreement's limited recourse clause (cl 11.1), expressed as overriding ('Notwithstanding any other term'), confined the lender's entitlement to recourse to the specifically defined property; clause 9.1(d) of the mortgage must be read consistently with that paramount limitation and therefore did not authorize the mortgagee to execute general security agreements over all assets of the borrowers as attorney.
9 Dec 2008

BODY CORPORATE NO.205963 AND ANOR V LEUSCHKE GROUP ARCHITECTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-5572

Citation

openlaw-91d4a924_8cff_4819_887c_f48410b9e9c1.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 2.04 is ambiguous as to whether 'system' and the bracketed phrase apply to 'exterior cladding'. Applying ordinary meaning and industry usage, 'exterior cladding' is not to be read as 'exterior cladding system' and the bracketed phrase 'and any associated waterproofing treatment and flashings' modifies 'roofing system' only. Because of the genuine ambiguity the clause is construed for the insured. Accordingly clause 2.04 does not exclude liability for the four specified categories of water ingress and the insurer must indemnify Leuschke in respect of those matters.
20 Oct 2005

RECREATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2004-404-7111

Citation

openlaw-a77e2b7a_4870_44b4_9da1_d5cc280a3dc2.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 17 is not ambiguous on its proper construction; no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument was demonstrated and the interests of justice (weighed against costs and lack of demonstrated public benefit) do not justify granting leave to appeal.

New Zealand Case Law

CHANG V LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7820

TOTARA INVESTMENTS LIMITED V CRISMAC LIMITED SC 75/2009

BODY CORPORATE NO.205963 AND ANOR V LEUSCHKE GROUP ARCHITECTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-5572

RECREATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2004-404-7111