New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estoppel by conduct

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2018

NEWFOUNDWORLD SITE 2 (HOTEL) LIMITED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZCA 261

Citation

[2018] NZCA 261
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court: (1) the July 2012 email exchanges did constitute an agreement permitting Novotel to charge for early check‑ins in the circumstances described; (2) that informal agreement did not form part of or survive the separately negotiated and executed 2013 Agreement, which superseded prior arrangements; (3) payments by Air New Zealand in response to Novotel invoices were attributable to mistake and did not establish an unequivocal representation giving rise to estoppel; and (4) clause 11.2 did not plainly or unambiguously cover recovery of solicitor/client indemnity cos…
10 Aug 2015

COX & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1878

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1878
Court

High Court

The parties reached a binding settlement which was properly characterised as an accord and satisfaction covering all outstanding matters including alleged representations; the plaintiffs repudiated the settlement by refusing to accept its scope and pursuing further claims, and therefore could not validly cancel it; estoppel and the prohibition on benefiting from one's own wrongdoing precluded the plaintiffs' cancellation and revival of original claims, so the defendant is entitled to judgment.
20 Dec 2011

GLENMORGAN FARM LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) V NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK LEASING LIMITED AND NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE LIMITED AND NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK PROGENY LIMITED COA CA774/2010

Citation

COA CA774/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

Bloodstock had a contractual right to take possession of Generous under clause 5(c) of the Refinancing Agreement read with the CCA and LPA2, a right superior to Glenmorgan's possessory interest; alternatively, even if unlawful, Bloodstock's act did not cause Glenmorgan any compensable loss because receivership and sale by receivers were inevitable and income was applied to debt; accordingly appeal dismissed.
16 Sept 2010

DIAMOND STUD LIMITED AND ANOR V NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE LIMITED CA CA293/2010

Citation

openlaw-14964a14_09f6_4cad_9d52_4dbb637e7fde.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 9 of the Conditions of Sale did not, either expressly or by implication, exclude the common law rule permitting an undisclosed principal to be sued; clause 9 merely restated the common law to warn bidders, so the respondent was entitled to pursue Diamond Stud as undisclosed principal and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Sept 2009

SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V D N SCOTT HC ROT CIV 2008-463-909

Citation

openlaw-cc1bc86b_5d3b_4208_90cb_2cf87dd84310.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the cause of action accrued on the date of the insured event (the stroke of 1 January 1997); limitation under Limitation Act 1950 s4(1) therefore began to run then and the claim, commenced more than six years later, is statute‑barred. The estoppel/Ombudsman referral argument failed because the limitation period had already expired.
5 Feb 2009

GULF HARBOUR INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR V RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-404-005005

Citation

openlaw-c438b8e7_c05c_45d5_a6e4_aa02f2cad6ec.pdf
Court

High Court

The development licence and the approved development scheme, including concept plan GHM1, remain operative and prescriptive of the scope of development of Hammerhead Point; the prescribed form of lease does not and cannot confer broader development rights than those authorized by the 1977 Act and the development scheme, so GH Investments is precluded from pursuing its proposed large residential/time‑share complex; the Council must subdivide Hammerhead Point into three and grant leases in the prescribed form but development is constrained by the scheme and statute and subject to RMA/LGA requir…
20 Apr 2007

SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006

Citation

SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006
Court

Supreme Court

Clause 16.0 was a clarification and did not alter the parties' rights under the standard GST clauses; cl 13.0 already satisfied s 11(1)(m) in the circumstances of a sale of a tenanted property; the exercise of the option was valid and the respondent could be permitted to rely on the terms of the option to tender a personal cheque for the deposit; leave to appeal granted limited to the estoppel issue.

New Zealand Case Law

NEWFOUNDWORLD SITE 2 (HOTEL) LIMITED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZCA 261

COX & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1878

GLENMORGAN FARM LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) V NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK LEASING LIMITED AND NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE LIMITED AND NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK PROGENY LIMITED COA CA774/2010

DIAMOND STUD LIMITED AND ANOR V NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE LIMITED CA CA293/2010

SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V D N SCOTT HC ROT CIV 2008-463-909

GULF HARBOUR INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR V RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-404-005005

SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006