New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity clauses

Legal area

Court

1 May 2018

MINISTER OF EDUCATION v H CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LTD (FORMERLY HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LTD) [2018] NZHC 871

Citation

[2018] NZHC 871
Court

High Court

The Court held that a builder (Hawkins) owed the plaintiffs a tortious duty to ensure building work complied with the Building Code; that duty was not excluded by the construction contracts or warranties; identified defects (poorly formed metal roofs including inadequate pitch, sub-roof formation and associated defects, poorly formed internal gutters, defective gymnasium apron flashings, inadequate ground clearance and cold joints, and the gymnasium window defect) breached Building Code clauses B2 and E2; limitation defences were dismissed except in respect of the gymnasium packer detail (tim…
9 Mar 2017

BRICKHILL CAPITAL (NZ) LTD v DEFONE GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LTD [2017] NZHC 383

Citation

[2017] NZHC 383
Court

High Court

Judgment entered because the undisputed contractual relationship and the defendant's failure to respond established liability for the debt and indemnity sums; contractual clauses permitted recovery of costs and interest but duplicated overseas and domestic legal work was partly disallowed, resulting in a reduced indemnity costs award of NZD $85,000 and specified disbursements.
7 Nov 2014

HARICOT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v MAEREWHENUA DISTRICT WATER RESOURCE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2781

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2781
Court

High Court

The Court held that most challenged corporate actions were within the powers of the company and not oppressive, but clause 14.4 of the Water Supply Agreement (a broad indemnity expanding liabilities beyond the Memorandum of Encumbrance) was unfairly prejudicial; Haricot is not obliged to sign a Water Supply Agreement containing that clause and relief granted limited to deletion or replacement of cl 14.4 to make liability co-extensive with existing obligations under the Memorandum of Encumbrance; other remedies were unnecessary because defective redemption was rescinded and other complaints fa…
4 Apr 2013

GILLESPIE V GUEST HC AK CIV-2011-404-1629

Citation

openlaw-bc6d81d5_a217_4924_ac1a_8f6156559ecf.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to establish as a matter of law and on uncontested facts that he was a trustee entitled to rely conclusively on the trust deed's limitation and indemnity clauses and that the claims necessarily fall outside the irreducible core; factual disputes (appointment, capacity in which defendant acted) and the narrow construction of exclusion clauses mean the proceeding is not bound to fail and strike-out must be dismissed; plaintiffs given leave to reply and pursue further discovery.

New Zealand Case Law

MINISTER OF EDUCATION v H CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LTD (FORMERLY HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LTD) [2018] NZHC 871

BRICKHILL CAPITAL (NZ) LTD v DEFONE GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LTD [2017] NZHC 383

HARICOT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v MAEREWHENUA DISTRICT WATER RESOURCE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2781

GILLESPIE V GUEST HC AK CIV-2011-404-1629