New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegal contracts

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2023

GURU NZ FORESTS LTD v PAUANUI DREAM ESTATE LTD [2023] NZHC 347

Citation

[2023] NZHC 347
Court

High Court

On the summary application the Court found it reasonably arguable that the August 2021 instrument was a variation of the December 2019 agreement (not a new contract requiring liquidator consent), that waiver or estoppel by the vendor could validate the unconditional position, and that non-compliance with s 129 did not obviously render the contract illegal given CCLA s 72 and Companies Act protections; accordingly the applicant established a reasonably arguable proprietary interest and the caveat should be sustained on conditions requiring substantive proceedings.
21 Feb 2020

ARRIESGADO v GALLAGHER FAMILY INVESTMENTS LTD [2020] NZHC 232

Citation

[2020] NZHC 232
Court

High Court

The Main Agreement constituted a dealing that purported to give a beneficial interest in accessory units to a person who was not the registered owner of a principal unit, which contravened s53(1) UTA; under s53(7) that dealing was void ab initio and s71 CCLA applied, while the transfers from GFI to the Reyes were valid under the s53(1) exception; accordingly the Reyes have been full legal and equitable owners of the four accessory units since 14 June 2018 and GFI/Gallagher must account for income derived from them.
17 Aug 2017

MAAN AND SINGH v KEYS [2017] NZHC 1967

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1967
Court

High Court

The second lease was not intended by the parties to create legal relations and is therefore unenforceable; the respondent remains in arrears under the first (enforceable) lease but the applicants cannot obtain possession or cancellation in this proceeding because their Notice of Intention to Cancel and application related only to the second lease, so the application is declined and applicants must issue a proper notice/application in respect of the first lease to pursue relief.
28 Oct 2015

DOUGLAS BANKS AND CHRISTINE SANDRA BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZSC 158

Citation

[2015] NZSC 158
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no issue of general or public importance nor commercial significance, there was no demonstrated risk of miscarriage of justice, the applicants were bound by the terms of the lease they negotiated and signed in 2006, the evidential burden for alleged misrepresentation was not met, earlier leases were not shown to be illegal or to attract relief, and register notations could not alter the legal nature of the registered interest.
8 Sept 2015

BANKS AND BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 417

Citation

[2015] NZCA 417
Court

Court of Appeal

The appellants are bound by the terms of the 2000 lease which they signed; the 1937 lease was not perpetually renewable as a matter of contractual construction and so cannot supply more favourable terms; any alleged statutory irregularities do not justify relief under the Illegal Contracts Act in the appellants' favour; the Council validly retained privilege over the internal report and no further discovery is warranted; costs follow the event and must be awarded to the respondent.
29 Apr 2015

SHOYE VENTURE LIMITED v DONALD GORDON WILSON [2015] NZHC 319

Citation

[2015] NZHC 319
Court

High Court

Non est factum was not established because Joyce did not act with all reasonable care when signing the October venue agreement; the October agreement superseded and discharged the September management agreement and thereby extinguished the guarantor's liability; the subsequent de facto operation was illegal under the Gambling Act and the court would not use s 7 of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 to enforce the guarantee; judgment entered for the defendant.
22 May 2014

OLO LTD v KA NO. 3 TRUSTEE LTD [2014] NZHC 1075

Citation

(2014) 15 NZCPR 332
Court

High Court

Clause 15.0(b), read with the April 2013 extension, arguably created an equitable easement (not merely a licence) sufficiently certain in purpose and route to support a caveat; the caveat therefore should not lapse, conditional on the caveator commencing substantive proceedings for specific performance within one month.
15 Apr 2014

S C BHANA and J M BHANA v RANOLF CO LIMITED AND JAAFAR HOLDINGS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 763

Citation

[2014] NZHC 763
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs' caveats were removed because Jaafar held a first registered mortgage that took priority; plaintiffs had contractually agreed to grant an exclusive first mortgage to Jaafar, plaintiffs failed to prove a superior unregistered registrable interest or any Land Transfer Act fraud, and the caveats served no useful purpose and unduly interfered with Jaafar's lawful exercise of mortgagee sale rights; removal was ordered conditional on presentation of memoranda of transfer.
22 Feb 2012

K APOSTOLAKIS V K KOLICH & DC KENNELLY HC WN CIV-2011-485-1453

Citation

openlaw-b5e787b8_30cb_49e2_a21d_d55609072bba.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's caveat applications were dismissed because no caveats remained registered and grounds were not shown; the summary judgment application failed because the statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action, lacked particulars and evidence of illegality or fraud against the respondents; the plaintiff's proceedings were struck out as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; indemnity costs were awarded to respondents.
18 Apr 2011

SECRETARY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS V INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-5253

Citation

openlaw-78a949ce_2277_4909_bf29_f8600f01b954.pdf
Court

High Court

Payments identified were not actual, reasonable or necessary costs of conducting the Trust's gambling and therefore constituted net proceeds improperly paid; s112 empowers the Court to order recovery of those amounts from the real beneficiaries, and where payments arise under contract the contract's illegality is a necessary consequence of the s112 finding though remedies are to be applied consistently with the Illegal Contracts Act 1970; accordingly ICSL and Mr Cosgrave were jointly and severally liable to repay $975,629.39 to the Secretary.