New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest and costs

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2023

SIKA (NZ) LTD v PEGASUS ENGINEERING LTD [2023] NZHC 834

Citation

[2023] NZHC 834
Court

High Court

Summary judgment entered for Sika against Pegasus because the express no set-off clause required payment without deduction, Pegasus's pleaded crossclaims sought monetary compensation rather than avoidance of the contract and it was implausible the Court would void the contract under s43 FTA on the facts; summary judgment against Lawry was dismissed because there is a real question to be tried whether he intended to guarantee Pegasus's obligations given he crossed out references to 'Guarantor', signed in a context identifying him as director, did not sign the customer execution block and Sika…
20 Sept 2022

NICOL v ALI [Application to cancel a lease] [2022] NZHC 2414

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2414
Court

High Court

The lessee's failure to pay rates as required by the lease constituted an unremedied breach and, having been given adequate notice under s 246, the lessor was entitled to cancel the lease, obtain possession under s 251 and recover rates arrears, interest and costs; the rent review notices served in 2021 were premature and invalid as the contractual review date was 1 August 2022.
5 May 2022

HAWKINS, v GANNON [2022] NZHC 941

Citation

[2022] NZHC 941
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was granted against the defendants for unpaid rent of NZD 135,125.33 and unpaid insurance premiums of NZD 67,811.54 together with contractual interest; summary judgment was declined for claims relating to maintenance fund contributions and resurfacing costs because there is an arguable defence that the lessee (company) may have been entitled to access the maintenance fund to defray those costs; costs were reserved and remaining issues directed to trial.
16 Nov 2021

JONES and KHOV v TYRELL [2021] NZHC 3084

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3084
Court

High Court

Because the defendant failed to respond or appear and the affidavit evidence established there was no reasonably arguable defence, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for the debt, interest and costs, and an order was made for delivery up of specified company property.
21 Jul 2021

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v DAVEY [2021] NZHC 1854

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1854
Court

High Court

The Bank established entitlement to summary judgment: the guarantee was valid, demand was made and unpaid, the guarantee's express no set-off/no counterclaim clause precluded the defendant's asserted counterclaims and set-offs as a defence to payment, proposed third party claims against receivers/BDO do not defeat the Bank's right to judgment, and no exercise of discretion to refuse summary judgment was warranted.
25 May 2021

WEBSTER v JAGGER [2021] NZHC 1146

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1146
Court

High Court

The Court held the fee agreement had its closest and most real connection with California law but applied New Zealand law where foreign law was not evidenced; the services charged were within the scope of the retainer, the fees were charged in accordance with the written hourly agreement and were reasonable in the circumstances, New Zealand client care rules and Fair Trading/Consumer Guarantees Acts did not apply to services carried out in California by a California-barred attorney, the defendant had no real defence to the debt claim, and summary judgment was warranted for USD 18,773.67 plus…
1 Sept 2020

ROBBIES BAR AND BISTRO LIMITED v ROBBIES BAR & BISTRO FRANCHISING LIMITED (in liq) [2020] NZHC 2258

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2258
Court

High Court

Clause 10, read in full, fixed the purchase price at $1,500,000; the 33% franchise fee payments over up to 10 years were instalments against that fixed price and any balance outstanding became due on expiry of the 10 year period; the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the outstanding balance plus contractual interest and costs.
16 Jul 2020

Eight Mile Farms Ltd v Bradley [2020] NZHC 1719

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1719
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was entered because the plaintiff proved the first defendant misappropriated $2,002,332.51 and had no defence to claims in money had and received and breach of fiduciary duty, and except for a deduction of $28,290.69 for the first payment the deceit claim was made out; declaration of a constructive trust was declined as premature because tracing has not established identifiable assets; instead the Court ordered an inquiry under High Court Rules r16, with specific disclosure directions to enable tracing and possible further relief later.
12 Sept 2019

FORDYCE ROAD DEVELOPMENT LTD (IN LIQ) v KHAN [2019] NZHC 2288

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2288
Court

High Court

Mr Khan, as sole director, allowed Fordyce to incur substantial obligations without realistic funding or objectively reasonable grounds to believe the company could meet them, and failed to exercise requisite care, thereby breaching ss135,136 and137; he also dishonestly misapplied and concealed settlement funds, breaching s131 and fiduciary duties; Mrs Khan received company funds with actual knowledge making retention unconscionable; accordingly compensation, restoration and equitable remedies were ordered.
29 Aug 2019

QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL v DENT [2019] NZHC 2140

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2140
Court

High Court

The Court held the fourth defendant was personally liable and must contribute because he exercised sufficient control and assumed responsibility for key decisions (instructing/backdating practical completion and releasing the retention without remediation) that caused the owners' losses; the Council was also liable to the owners and therefore entitled to contribution under s17 Law Reform Act; cross-border insolvency did not prevent the proceeding.