New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of assignment

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2017

DEBT BUYERS LTD v SCHUTT [2017] NZHC 2876

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2876
Court

High Court

The court held the assignments from NZGT to PSL and from PSL to Debt Buyers were effective such that Debt Buyers owned the debt of $373,225.63; the defendant's waiver and promissory estoppel defences failed because any suspension of payments was temporary, not a representation extinguishing liability, and adequate notice of default had been given; Limitation Act s20 did not apply and the claim was within the six‑year limitation period; Debt Buyers was entitled to judgment for $373,225.63 and Judicature Act interest at 5% p.a. on the principal shortfall of $269,704.01 from 1 December 2015 to j…
27 Oct 2017

MEROITI v SOUTHERN RECEIVABLES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2637

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2637
Court

High Court

The Property Law Act 2007 permits assignment of a debt by signed writing without requiring debtor notification for validity; notice governs to whom payments are payable and priority only. SRL provided sufficient evidence of the debt and assignment to make summary judgment appropriate because the appellant had no arguable defence.
18 Oct 2013

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) v CAVELL LEITCH PRINGLE & BOYLE [2013] NZHC 2718

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2718
Court

High Court

Even accepting for present purposes that the solicitor's undertaking was assignable and was assigned and that Cavell Leitch breached it, Dominion Finance suffered no loss causally attributable to that breach because the deposits were held subject to s225 RMA conditions and, due to Dominion Finance's decision as mortgagee to sell the development in bulk at higher unit prices, the purchasers were entitled to rescind and recover their deposits; awarding the deposits to Dominion would permit double recovery and Dominion was not entitled to them.
2 Feb 2012

BRICKWORKS BUILDING PRODUCTS (NZ) PTY LIMITED V COMMERCIAL FACTORS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-2249

Citation

openlaw-10a32268_a02b_4eea_b4ee_33b0408ff396.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found CFL had not proven a valid statutory assignment to which Brickworks had actual written notice before the yard agreement; accordingly CFL could not rely unchallenged on creditor status and the statutory demand was vulnerable. Brickworks established genuine, substantial disputes over approximately $20,014.60 of the claimed $40,234.66 and had arguable equitable set-offs (rent/outgoings and immediate losses from repudiation) arising from the same contract. On that basis and having exercised its discretion as to just and equitable grounds, the Court set aside the statutory demand a…
19 Feb 2010

M H NATHAN AND ORS V G S SMITH AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-000253

Citation

openlaw-77e2f2d4_9352_4122_9d7a_a2a43a3ba4d7.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the issues were largely factual or the application of settled law, concurrent findings by two judges reduced the need for further appeal, the matter lacked sufficient public importance given statutory change in 2008, and granting leave would not finally determine litigation because tort causes remained; accordingly the interests of justice did not require a second appeal.
16 Nov 2009

M H NATHAN AND ORS V G S SMITH AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-000253

Citation

openlaw-d637e7b0_28bd_4d7f_9599_2fb0fb26a4f7.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction to review that part of the Associate Judge's decision relating to the strike out application; the memorandum of transfer and notice of change of ownership sent to the defendants' solicitors constituted sufficient notice of an equitable assignment so as to entitle the named transferees to sue and to bring the proceedings within the Limitation Act period; accordingly the strike out application was properly dismissed and the review is dismissed.
12 Feb 2009

CAVELL LEITCH PRINGLE BOYLE V DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED CA CA287/2008

Citation

openlaw-02016f84_5796_4fc4_8b1f_11ad8046bb10.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the appellant demonstrated reasonably arguable defences on the quantification of Dominion's loss and on the adequacy of notice of assignment, issues which require full trial and cannot be resolved on the sparse evidence presented at summary judgment stage.
6 Aug 2008

VILLAGE LIFESTYLES LTD V JEE HING LEE HC AK CIV 2008-404-001639

Citation

openlaw-06a4b063_0ee2_4953_97a4_21587959f136.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held plaintiff had standing: the nomination combined with conduct and s4 Contracts (Privity) Act meant the nominee's rights could be enforced; the assignment to plaintiff was valid and took effect from notice (11 January 2008) after consideration was paid, so plaintiff could sue. However, the defendant raised a tenable factual defence (alleged forgery/existence of an earlier agreement and disputed alterations) that could not be resolved on affidavits alone; accordingly the summary judgment application was adjourned to permit forensic handwriting examination and further hearing.
2 Apr 2008

THE HOME MORTGAGE COMPANY LIMITED V BIDOIS AND ANOR HC TAU CIV-2006-070-988

Citation

openlaw-7dd50283_2357_4743_837e_1ada732e48bc.pdf
Court

High Court

Assignment was valid because the deed expressly allowed assignment to successors and lawful assigns and the contract was not of the rare personal type preventing assignment; the notice of assignment was sufficient; however the defendant raised an arguable factual defence of waiver based on an oral assurance that payment before 19 September 2005 would prevent action, so summary judgment could not be granted and factual findings after oral evidence are required.