New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity clause

Legal area

Court

5 Jun 2020

127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2020] NZSC 53

Citation

[2020] 1 NZLR 17
Court

Supreme Court

The indemnity clause in the Collateral Deed is not an unenforceable penalty because, properly construed, it was confined to indemnifying payment obligations (rent and outgoings) for the initial lease term and its consequences were not out of all proportion (not exorbitant) to Honey Bees' legitimate interest in securing installation of a second lift and protecting the commercial viability of the preschool; the proportionality test does not require mandatory calculation of common law damages in every case.
27 Jun 2019

127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2019] NZSC 62

Citation

[2019] NZSC 62
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the indemnity clause was a penalty; the Court of Appeal had concluded the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties and that conclusion is the subject of the appeal.
6 Dec 2018

HINES v EASTLAND PORT LIMITED [2018] NZCA 564

Citation

[2018] NZCA 564
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed grounds were either factual findings open to the Employment Court or legal questions lacking general or public importance; the Employment Court did not err in law on justification for dismissal, scope of s 4(1A)(c), personal grievance threshold for removal/supervision of duties, or interpretation of the indemnity clause.
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that informal agreement did not form part of or survive the separately negotiated and executed 2013 Agreement, which superseded prior arrangements; (3) payments by Air New Zealand in response to Novotel invoices were attributable to mistake and did not establish an unequivocal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…
18 Jun 2018

BODY CORPORATE 207812 v SINGH [2018] NZHC 1449

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1449
Court

High Court

The court approved the scheme as filed because the post-AGM amendment to clause 22 did not increase the indemnity burden on owners and an identical copy of the scheme to be sealed had been served on all interested parties, satisfying procedural fairness and justifying approval.
19 Jun 2017

EASTON v LARSEN [2017] NZCA 258

Citation

[2017] NZCA 258
Court

Court of Appeal

The pleaded claim cannot succeed because it does not allege dishonesty or any conduct amounting to a fiduciary breach outside the scope of the trust deed indemnity; on the pleaded facts the claim is at best negligent trust administration barred by the indemnity clause (and in any event by the Limitation Act) and is incapable of being cured by amendment.
29 May 2017

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD v NEWFOUNDWORLD SITE 2 (HOTEL) LTD [2017] NZHC 1131

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1131
Court

High Court

The 2013 agreement was a new contract containing an entire agreement clause and expressly provided that early check-ins were 'not applicable' unless mutually agreed; Novotel was not entitled to levy early check-in charges under that contract, Air NZ paid the extra charges under a mistake of fact and is entitled to repayment of HK$7,603,110; Novotel is not entitled to rely on estoppel; interest awarded from 18 June 2015 and costs to plaintiff.
15 Sept 2015

WATER GUARD NZ LTD v MIDGEN ENTERPRISES LTD [2015] NZHC 2227

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2227
Court

High Court

Court found no actionable misrepresentation by Midgen as to cash sales — contemporaneous documents and due diligence supported 439 sales and references to 600 were orders/ambiguous; Bragulla's statements about higher sales were proven but did not cause plaintiff's purchase decision so no compensable loss under s43 or deceit; factual defects proven: (1) weld failures in large stainless chambers of Gold II/Platinum II; (2) overheating defect in Platinum II with two lamps; (3) defective white glue in Gold III/Silver II/Silver III causing leaks — these made affected units unfit for purpose/ not o…
13 Aug 2014

BRIGGS & ANOR v HUTTON & ANOR CA580/2013[2014] NZCA 392

Citation

[2014] NZCA 392
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 8 of the Hannigan settlement was ambiguous on whether the Huttons were liable for the full ANZ loan shortfall; the respondents' interpretation was reasonably arguable and material factual disputes existed about the surrounding circumstances (and possible defences), so refusal of summary judgment was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
4 Mar 2014

MORTGAGE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (CALIBRE) LIMITED v CALIBRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2014] NZSC 14

Citation

[2014] NZSC 14
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised did not involve matters of public or general importance, the material evidence indicated Calibre had made demand on the principal debtor so the indemnity was properly engaged, and there was no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice from the Court of Appeal's decision.