New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaration remedy

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2015

GREYMOUTH PETROLEUM LTD v RUWHIU [2015] NZHC 220

Citation

[2015] NZHC 220
Court

High Court

The court held that Bonus established breach of clause 11.7(a) because defendants failed to return confidential information and service deliverables in their possession and control; however, clause 11.6's obligation to 'safeguard' does not impose a standalone retention obligation incompatible with an immediate deletion obligation in clause 11.7(b), so there was no proven breach of clause 11.6; Greymouth's claims under clauses 4 and 5 failed because delivery of the MacBook to the IT manager satisfied the return obligation under clause 4 and Greymouth's post‑termination requests were inaccurate…
28 May 2014

BSR HOLDINGS LIMITED v SOLID HOSPITALITY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1118

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1118
Court

High Court

The court held the 2008 email exchange created a binding agreement only as to ownership (acknowledging the listed items as lessee property) and did not resolve maintenance responsibilities; clause 8 of the lease obliges the lessee to maintain the interior, which includes the listed spas, showers and heat pumps, and those items are not excluded from the maintenance fund by clause 3 because they are fixtures/trade fixtures rather than 'lessee's chattels'; the defendant's mistake defence is not credible and estoppel need not be relied upon.
16 Sept 2009

SEETELLIGENCE MALTA LIMITED AND ANOR V COMPUDIGM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC WN CIV-2007-485-002773

Citation

openlaw-1fe9c687_3363_4164_a7c2_dd46165b49fa.pdf
Court

High Court

On the unopposed affidavit evidence the plaintiffs did not materially breach the Distribution Agreement; any alleged breach was at most technical and was remedied within the contractual cure period; accordingly the defendant's termination was invalid.
15 Dec 2008

SKURR AS TRUSTEES OF E M AND J A SKURR FAMILY TRUST V CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-000465

Citation

openlaw-25e19004_6348_4f45_9b7f_b65b80588bf0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that on the proper construction of the 1933 Act the contested Eyre Riverbed was not vested in the Trust or its successor because the statutory process envisaged by s12 (including compliance with the District Land Registrar's requirements and the sequence of notices and issuance of certificates) was not completed in respect of the disputed land; accordingly the Council does not hold a vested interest in the Eyre Riverbed by virtue of the Act.

New Zealand Case Law

GREYMOUTH PETROLEUM LTD v RUWHIU [2015] NZHC 220

BSR HOLDINGS LIMITED v SOLID HOSPITALITY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1118

SEETELLIGENCE MALTA LIMITED AND ANOR V COMPUDIGM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC WN CIV-2007-485-002773

SKURR AS TRUSTEES OF E M AND J A SKURR FAMILY TRUST V CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-000465