New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inducing breach of contract

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2023

COLVILLE v COLVILLE [2023] NZHC 2659

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2659
Court

High Court

The restraint executed by Adam was valid; Adam breached it by participating in and financially supporting a competing franchise and by using HDD as a vehicle tied to the franchise; Peter knowingly induced and encouraged that breach and acted with the requisite intention; plaintiff suffered loss measured as a proportion of the value he paid for the restraint; damages awarded NZD 252,000 (NZD 126,000 each against Adam and Peter) plus prescribed interest from 18 May 2021; costs awarded to plaintiff on a 2B basis to be paid equally by defendants.
4 Apr 2023

MOCKINGBIRD PROPERTIES LTD v JHIM HOMES LTD [2023] NZHC 737

Citation

[2023] NZHC 737
Court

High Court

Leave was granted to continue the summary judgment proceeding against the first defendant because the claim was not clearly unsustainable (liquidator had accepted a proof of debt for $407,353.31), continuation would not advantage the plaintiff over other creditors nor risk dissipation of assets given liquidator involvement, the claim is interrelated with a claim against the second defendant such that establishing the first defendant's breach is necessary, and the matter is suitable for summary determination.
1 Jul 2022

TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED v V2TRACK (2022) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1556

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1556
Court

High Court

The Court granted a mandatory interim injunction because plaintiffs established a strong, reasonably arguable case in tort for causing loss by unlawful means — namely that v2track arguably retained QPWS Iridium connections unlawfully after the 2021 contract ended and did so with intent to cause loss — and the balance of convenience and overall justice (including QPWS safety risks and potential irreparable commercial harm to plaintiffs) favoured injunctive relief.
8 Jul 2021

GREEN WAY LIMITED v MUTUAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND OTHERS [2021] NZHC 1704

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1704
Court

High Court

All three without‑notice orders were rescinded because Green Way failed to comply with r 7.23 by not using Form G32 and certifying, and more importantly failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (notably correspondence showing the former employees had engaged solicitors and undertaken not to misuse information and statements about MCL's nature); the non‑disclosure was not innocent in the relevant sense and, had the court been fully informed, the urgent relief would likely not have been granted.
29 Oct 2020

FARRAND ORCHARDS LIMITED v KERIKERI IRRIGATION COMPANY LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2840

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2840
Court

High Court

The claim against the manager for inducing breach was struck out because an agent acting in the course of employment cannot be liable for inducing his employer's breach absent clear pleaded and evidenced bad faith; the company's strike-out and summary judgment applications failed because plaintiffs have arguable causes of action (including an alternative works contract to install the meter and an arguable implied term as to sufficient pressure) and the contract exclusion clauses did not plainly or necessarily bar those claims; plaintiffs granted leave to amend pleadings and proceed against th…
1 May 2020

TECTRAX LTD v SEALEGS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2020] NZHC 879

Citation

[2020] NZHC 879
Court

High Court

The court awarded only scale costs because, at the time the defendants filed the counterclaim they had a favourable High Court judgment in Zhang upon which it was reasonable to rely; the defendants did not act unreasonably or take steps that caused Tectrax to incur costs after the Court of Appeal judgment, and therefore there was no basis for increased costs under r 14.6.
23 Oct 2019

EUREKLY LTD v CRIMSON CONSULTING LTD [2019] NZHC 2674

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2674
Court

High Court

The Court held the protest must be set aside because the essential character of the pleaded causes of action against the second defendant (breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty) is equitable/property based and independent of the employment relationship; there was no ongoing employment relationship to be supported and some remedies sought are not available in the Authority, therefore High Court jurisdiction is not displaced by s 161.
7 May 2019

EUREKLY LTD v CRIMSON CONSULTING LTD [2019] NZHC 972

Citation

[2019] NZHC 972
Court

High Court

Because the proceeding was at an early interlocutory stage with no statement of defence filed, and because unresolved jurisdictional issues and a mutual confidentiality agreement created a real risk of one-sided and prejudicial reporting, the judge limited pre-hearing disclosure: documents requested by the media were not released before the 20 May 2019 interlocutory hearing; the statement of claim and, when filed, the statement of defence may be released to the media subject to any directions of the trial judge.
1 Aug 2017

DARGAVILLE FARMS LIMITED v DAVID BASIL WEBSTER AND FRANCIS KIM WEBSTER [2017] NZHC 1790

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1790
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside only in part: Dargaville Farms Ltd failed to establish, on the evidence, enforceable cross-demands against the Websters personally except for an arguable mismanagement/negligence claim capped at $77,000; pre-incorporation promises were not ratified so could not be enforced by the company; embezzlement and inducing-breach claims lacked prima facie proof against the Websters, therefore the demand is upheld for $649,229 and the company must pay that sum by 22 August 2017 or face liquidation proceedings.
14 Mar 2017

BALLANTYNE TRUSTEES LTD & ORS AS TRUSTEES OF THE GBR TRUST and KEUNG v GBR INVESTMENT LIMITED & ORS [2017] NZHC 435

Citation

[2017] NZHC 435
Court

High Court

Associate Judge Matthews struck out multiple causes of action and dismissed the proceeding: (1) lack of personal service on Natalia Koulanov meant proceedings discontinued against her under r5.72(2); (2) plaintiffs breached mandatory requirement to serve SOC as soon as practicable and delay plus defective pleading merited striking out many claims though r1.5(4) barred setting aside for delay because defendants took steps; (3) causes of action arising before Mr Keung's 2010 bankruptcy vested in Official Assignee and his personal claims (except defamation) were struck out; (4) numerous causes p…