New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contract formation

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2023

LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED v GIBSON SHEAT [2023] NZHC 1981

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1981
Court

High Court

The Court found that the parties reached a binding oral settlement on 29 February 2016 which resolved LCIL's claims against Gibson Sheat; the agreement was not conditional upon execution of a formal written instrument, the requirement for independent advice under the Rules and fiduciary obligations was satisfied in the circumstances (including availability of and advice from independent advisers and the parties' informed commercial decision), and the agreement was performed; accordingly LCIL's claims were dismissed.
1 Apr 2022

GREYMOUTH HOLDINGS LTD v LUNDON [2022] NZHC 641

Citation

[2022] NZHC 641
Court

High Court

On the summary caveat application the Court held GHL had demonstrated a reasonably arguable case that an enforceable contract existed, that it was potentially entitled to specific performance (and thus an equitable interest), and that the caveat purported to protect that interest; factual disputes about knowledge of the vendors' mistake, valuation and the exercise of equitable discretion were left for trial, so the caveat should not lapse.
16 Mar 2022

SARWAR CONSTRUCTION LTD v FLUID ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY LTD [2022] NZHC 482 _x000b_

Citation

[2022] NZHC 482
Court

High Court

On an objective assessment of the agreement and contemporaneous communications the contract was between Fluid and Sarwar, the Agreement and parties' conduct permitted progressive invoicing (clause 8), Fluid provided sufficient detail to support the invoice, and there was no genuine or substantial dispute that the debt was due; therefore the statutory demand should not be set aside.
7 Jul 2021

INSPIRE HOLDINGS LTD v JSM PROPERTIES LTD [2021] NZHC 1688

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1688
Court

High Court

No reasonably arguable legally binding agreement existed on either 8 January 2021 or 11 January 2021 because the GST description was an objectively essential outstanding term and the parties did not demonstrate a mutual intention to be immediately bound; the vendor's earlier offer had lapsed and required re-signature to be revived, so no equitable interest existed to support the caveat.
11 Dec 2020

MONTGOMERIE v MONTGOMERIE [2020] NZHC 3282

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3282
Court

High Court

Objective analysis of contemporaneous communications established no binding settlement of all essential terms; only an immediate payment of $7,500 in exchange for a one‑week adjournment was agreed, leaving essential terms unresolved; s 13 requirements were therefore met and the court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt.
12 Nov 2020

PRIVATE ACCOUNTING TRUSTEE LTD v FLAVELL [2020] NZHC 2945

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2945
Court

High Court

Summary judgment dismissed because material factual issues and ambiguities remain regarding whether the Deed created a new, standalone personal obligation on Mr Flavell or merely recorded pre-existing entity-level arrangements; the original informal loan agreements form part of the factual matrix and require fuller evidence and cross-examination at a substantive hearing before liability and valuation issues (including profit-sharing and Ecobiotics share value) can be resolved.
29 May 2020

3I INNOVATION LIMITED v BLACK MAGIC DESIGN STUDIO LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1173

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1173
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because 3I established a real and substantial dispute as to whether it ever contracted with BMDSL (evidence showed dealings were plausibly with Mr Sterling personally and BMDSL was struck off/restored and treated as dormant), and 3I also demonstrated arguable counterclaims and disputes (conditional bonus not triggered and wrongful retention of IP), satisfying the s 290(4)(a) threshold so the demand should not stand.
14 May 2019

CBC CONSTRUCTION (AUCKLAND) LIMITED v AUCKLAND CONCRETE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1104

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1104
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand was granted because CBC established an arguable, genuine and substantial dispute about whether its payment schedule was timely and therefore whether the debt was due; the conflict of evidence about the 20 April 2017 email, the parties' course of conduct (including consistent treatment of retentions and historical timing of schedules) supported CBC's position or estoppel, and the statutory demand therefore could not stand.
27 Feb 2019

BYRNE v ROSE [2019] NZHC 273

Citation

[2019] NZHC 273
Court

High Court

Court held there was a binding contract between Byrne and Rose; express deadlines (installation 13 July 2015; commissioning 7 August 2015) and implied terms (workmanlike care, fitness for milking purpose) formed part of the contract; Byrne breached by failing deadlines and by delivering a concrete floor and drainage deficient for safe milking, entitling Rose to remediation costs and limited damages, while Byrne (minus two specific deductions) and Hume were entitled to the unpaid balances; loss of profits beyond the shortfall in 2015/16 were too remote or not causally attributable to builder's…
27 Feb 2019

CARROLL CIVIL LIMITED v TEXCO DRILLING AND PILING LIMITED [2019] NZHC 260

Citation

[2019] NZHC 260
Court

High Court

Because there was no written acceptance or incorporation of the drilling quotation into the subcontract and the subcontract required written variations, a genuine and substantial dispute existed as to whether Carroll owed the claimed debt; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(a).