New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contract interpretation

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

SKYCITY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED v MPF PARKING NZ LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3446

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3446
Court

High Court

The phrase "the relevant date" in the definition of "Market Value" must be read in the context of the Concession Agreement as a whole and means the date specified in the applicable definition of Compensation Sum; here that date is the date immediately prior to the destruction or damage (21 October 2019). Schedule 10 and the IVS do not compel discounting the forecast cash flows to the Proposed Termination Date and do not override the ordinary contractual instruction to calculate Market Value as at the specified valuation date; commercial or PPP arguments did not justify displacing the contract…
22 Nov 2023

RAU PAENGA LTD v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LTD [2023] NZHC 3329

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3329
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because CPB failed to demonstrate a sufficiently arguable error of law or fact on matters relevant to leave; the High Court correctly applied Arbitration Act principles and Channel Tunnel reasoning to grant interim relief preserving the status quo to allow the Engineer's contractual determination and the agreed arbitration process to operate; subsequent determination by the Engineer and the balance of harm supported refusal of leave.
22 Nov 2023

CIVIC LANE LTD v DIBBLE [2023] NZCA 582

Citation

[2023] NZCA 582
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 20 must be read as obliging the vendor to work with the purchaser to design an acceptable bespoke layout and to bear the costs of converting the two standard units into the single agreed apartment; the vendor could not unilaterally increase the purchase price to recover those conversion costs. Only changes that amount to departures from the outline specifications in schedule 3 could lead to a price adjustment, and then only with the purchaser's agreement; project management and contractor variation costs arising from the agreed bespoke layout are not payable by the purchaser.
1 Nov 2023

INTOP HOMES LIMITED v LOT 77 LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3057

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3057
Court

High Court

Award 2B costs because Intop's contractual interpretation arguments were not hopeless, its conduct did not amount to bad or very unreasonable behaviour required for indemnity costs, and the public interest in resolving the contract interpretation weighed against treating the application as improperly brought.
1 Sept 2023

GROW BUILD NZ LTD (in liq) v TIMBER CABINS GROUP LTD [2023] NZHC 2447

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2447
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff is insolvent the r 5.45 threshold is met but the plaintiff's contractual claim is reasonably arguable and there is credible evidence that the defendant's conduct contributed to the plaintiff's impecuniosity; balancing access to justice and defendant's protection required staged security rather than full amount sought. The judge ordered staged security ($5,000 by 29 Sept 2023; $10,000 by close of pleadings; $20,000 within 15 working days after service of defendant's evidence) and stayed proceedings until payment at each stage, reserving leave to vary the stay and directin…
4 Aug 2023

WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v HOWLEY [2023] NZHC 2061

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2061
Court

High Court

The Court held Wendco failed art 17B(1)(c) because there was no reasonable possibility it would succeed on the merits: contemporaneous documents disproved any binding 2018 lease renewal and the Addendum plainly operated only while Wendy's NZ owned the premises; accordingly interim relief was declined and the preservation order discharged.
12 Jul 2023

SKYCITY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LTD v MPF PARKING NZ LTD [2023] NZHC 1818

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1818
Court

High Court

Evidence in this Part 18 declaratory proceeding must be given by affidavit; MPF's application to depart from the Part 18 affidavit procedure and to obtain discovery was dismissed because its pleadings failed to identify specific relevant extrinsic issues and discovery was not justified; SkyCity was granted leave to file reply affidavits; pre-trial timetable was set to prepare for a two-day trial in the week of 18 September 2023.
12 Jul 2023

PRESTIGE BUILDING REMOVALS LTD v VOGEL [2023] NZHC 1815

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1815
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument nor one of sufficient importance to justify further appeal; the arbitrator's finding that the Vogels provided "proper access" was not perverse and was supported by the evidence, so there was no need to determine the statutory point about the 2007 amendment.
23 Jun 2023

DIBBLE v CIVIC LANE LTD [2023] NZHC 1582

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1582
Court

High Court

Clause 20 was interpreted to require purchaser agreement to any adjustment to the purchase price arising from changes to the outline specifications; costs arising from the developer's conversion of two originally marketed units into a single bespoke apartment were the developer's commercial risk and not recoverable under clause 20; Civic Lane failed to obtain or establish purchaser agreement to the claimed adjustments (other than amounts accepted by Dibble), and therefore summary judgment for specific performance was granted in favour of the plaintiff.
15 Jun 2023

FEDERAL CAPITAL LIMITED v PETER JOHN SIMUNOVICH [2023] NZHC 1500

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1500
Court

High Court

The High Court held it was reasonably arguable that the Security Sharing Agreement, a written document signed by the defendant, could be interpreted to include a contract of guarantee within the meaning of s 27(2) Property Law Act 2007; extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret written terms (not to alter them); because factual matrix and discovery were required the interlocutory applications for summary judgment and strike out were properly declined and the defendant's application for leave to appeal those interlocutory decisions and the security for costs decision was refused as the issue…