New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contractual dispute resolution

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2023

DU VAL CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED v INVSTA LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3164

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3164
Court

High Court

Invsta failed to displace the presumption that it should pay costs after withdrawing the statutory demand; there was a substantial and genuine contractual dispute (including termination and liability for fees) that made the statutory demand inappropriate and the dispute should have been pursued by the contractual dispute resolution procedure or negotiation; accordingly Invsta must pay costs on a 2B basis and disbursements as claimed.
24 Oct 2023

RAU PAENGA LIMITED v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2974

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2974
Court

High Court

The Court granted interim relief restraining CPB from requiring the Engineer to suspend or terminate under cl 14.3.3 because RPL demonstrated a reasonable possibility of success on the merits that CPB's default notices were defective and contestable, that suspension/termination would cause harm not adequately reparable by damages (including loss of personnel, warranties, subcontractor continuity and third-party interests), and the balance of harm favored preserving the status quo to allow the contractual dispute resolution (Engineer decision then arbitration) to proceed.
29 Aug 2019

CROMI INVESTMENTS LTD v CMP CONSTRUCTION LTD [2019] NZHC 2142

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2142
Court

High Court

Payment Claim 33 did not satisfy s 20(2)(d) because it failed to indicate a due date for payment and therefore was not a valid payment claim under the Construction Contracts Act; consequently the Act's automatic 'pay now' enforcement did not arise and the Court applied s 290 of the Companies Act and found a substantial and genuine dispute over incomplete remedial works whose value exceeded the retention claimed, so the statutory demand was set aside and the parties were directed to resolve the dispute under the contract's dispute resolution procedure.
29 Aug 2013

H & H CONTRACTORS LTD v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS LTD & Or [2013] NZHC 2225

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2225
Court

High Court

Clause 45 required H & H to serve a prescribed notice within 15 working days from when it was reasonably aware of the matter (triggered by LW's 28 January 2009 email); H & H failed to comply and did not plead or support estoppel or fraud adequately; clause 45 therefore barred H & H's contractual claims and its FTA claim; all claims against Leighton Works were struck out.

New Zealand Case Law

DU VAL CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED v INVSTA LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3164

RAU PAENGA LIMITED v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2974

CROMI INVESTMENTS LTD v CMP CONSTRUCTION LTD [2019] NZHC 2142

H & H CONTRACTORS LTD v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS LTD & Or [2013] NZHC 2225