New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Impossibility of performance

Legal area

Court

24 Sept 2021

CASSINY LTD v HOUNSLOW HOLDINGS LTD [2021] NZHC 2528

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2528
Court

High Court

The application for interim relief was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried: the agreement was not conditional on obtaining resource consent, the plaintiff unreasonably delayed lodging the consent application (one day before settlement) and its inability to settle was self‑inflicted and not excused by COVID‑19, so interim suspension of the settlement notice was not justified.
8 Jun 2010

NEW GENERATION HOMES LIMITED V SSSD NAIDU INVESTMENT LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-000052

Citation

openlaw-daafe387_ede2_43e4_bded_b2a6dd1f4e5c.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment for specific performance was refused because there was a real and arguable dispute over the interpretation of the handwritten clause (whether it made the entire contract conditional) and an arguable defence of impossibility of performance; those disputes precluded disposing of the claim on summary judgment.
16 Mar 2010

WAITARERE RISE LIMITED V RE RANGI AND SJ RANGI HC PMN CIV-2009-454-872

Citation

openlaw-4a57db1e_61e4_4d28_988d_40ca10158517.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff demonstrated there was no arguable defence of impossibility because the defendants failed to show a very substantial probability they could not comply with an order for specific performance; accordingly summary judgment ordering specific performance was appropriate, subject to a three-month period to comply and leave to apply for variation if difficulties arise.
8 Apr 2009

EWAN ROBERT CARR V RODNEY JOHN HUMPHRIES HC DUN CIV 2006 412 513

Citation

openlaw-545de4df_e28d_4064_b3f7_2e23d9b6f85b.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the summary judgment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial ground of defence (insufficient evidence of impossibility) and his failure to file opposition was inexcusable; however, the Court granted a stay of execution pending the Court of Appeal determination because the balance of convenience and risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory weighed in favour of a stay, subject to the condition that the appellant promptly take each available step to prosecute the appeal.
4 May 2007

PRIME RESOURCES COMPANY LTD V PARDEEP AND SHARYN ANITA KUMAR HC AK CIV2006-404-3334

Citation

openlaw-ec47e842_08c6_442f_a02a_fc48e5b6bdf5.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendants raised a tenable defence of impossibility of performance on the evidence such that the plaintiff failed to prove there is no substantial likelihood defendants could not comply with an order for specific performance; accordingly summary judgment for specific performance was declined and the matter must proceed to trial for full consideration.
22 Mar 2004

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION V BRUCE MONEY CA CA44/03

Citation

openlaw-bb452b57_675c_4267_b486_5de05db97f92.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the Employment Court's finding that Palmerston North was within reasonable commuting distance was open on the evidence and not a legal error, and Westpac had breached its contractual obligation because, even if only required to 'make every reasonable endeavour', it failed to confine the contest for the substantially similar position to redundant employees and thereby failed to offer a job option to Mr Money.

New Zealand Case Law

CASSINY LTD v HOUNSLOW HOLDINGS LTD [2021] NZHC 2528

NEW GENERATION HOMES LIMITED V SSSD NAIDU INVESTMENT LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-000052

WAITARERE RISE LIMITED V RE RANGI AND SJ RANGI HC PMN CIV-2009-454-872

EWAN ROBERT CARR V RODNEY JOHN HUMPHRIES HC DUN CIV 2006 412 513

PRIME RESOURCES COMPANY LTD V PARDEEP AND SHARYN ANITA KUMAR HC AK CIV2006-404-3334

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION V BRUCE MONEY CA CA44/03