New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oppression under credit contracts and consumer finance act

Legal area

Court

1 Jul 2016

WESTPAC NZ Ltd v TUSCANY PROPERTIES LTD [2016] NZHC 1488

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1488
Court

High Court

The meeting was without prejudice and produced no binding process contract; Westpac only agreed to consider any written proposal, which it did and permissibly rejected for valid commercial reasons; there was no reasonable reliance or detriment giving rise to estoppel, Westpac complied with its duty as mortgagee in marketing and sale, and its conduct was not oppressive—therefore Westpac is entitled to judgment for the shortfall, interest and costs.
23 Aug 2011

ONEPATH (NZ) LIMITED V BACS INVESTMENTS AND INSURANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-6546

Citation

openlaw-891a2d46_c37e_4324_a542_e2173c5dc054.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants did not raise any credible evidential foundation for their defences; the ledger and agreement established the debt and the clear wording of the personal guarantees bound the directors; allegations advanced were inherently improbable or contradicted by contemporaneous documents, so there was no real question to be tried and summary judgment was granted for $300,762.08 against the defendants with leave reserved for solicitor/client costs.
31 Mar 2010

SUNNYVALE PROPERTY TRUST LIMITED AND ORS V PROPERTY FINANCE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-106

Citation

openlaw-87200028_446b_4fb7_bd97_781ee5baa43f.pdf
Court

High Court

The definition of 'Expiry Date' in the loan agreements is ambiguous when read in context; there is a serious question to be tried that the loans were not callable prior to 31 October 2009 and therefore that the lenders may have breached the loan agreements by demanding repayment earlier; balance of convenience favours continuing the interim injunction pending determination because defendants face no irrecoverable loss while plaintiffs would suffer significant prejudice.
16 Jul 2008

SOUTHLAND BUILDING SOCIETY V MILLER HC CHCH CIV 2007 409 367

Citation

openlaw-495f3abf_d767_448b_bcf8_f9b08b605453.pdf
Court

High Court

The registered mortgage, by its terms and by virtue of registration, secures all advances; Mrs Miller did not prove oppression under s120 CCCF Act in manner or inducement terms and, even if the threshold were met, the Court would not exercise its discretion under s127 to reopen or limit the mortgage given inability to quantify misuse, both parties' innocent status regarding the fraud and the matrimonial agreement risk of double recovery; consequently the declaration was granted and the counterclaim dismissed.
6 Mar 2008

PUBLIC NOMINEES LIMITED V S R KELLY HC AK CIV 2007-404-003493

Citation

openlaw-6ee9ae0e_78a7_4129_a55f_bae16ee8e32d.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant failed to adduce credible contemporaneous evidence to support an arguable defence that the mortgagee acted oppressively or that s92 notice was not served; tenders were in line with valuations and the alleged undertaking was implausible and unsupported, therefore no reasonably arguable defence existed and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff.

New Zealand Case Law

WESTPAC NZ Ltd v TUSCANY PROPERTIES LTD [2016] NZHC 1488

ONEPATH (NZ) LIMITED V BACS INVESTMENTS AND INSURANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-6546

SUNNYVALE PROPERTY TRUST LIMITED AND ORS V PROPERTY FINANCE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-106

SOUTHLAND BUILDING SOCIETY V MILLER HC CHCH CIV 2007 409 367

PUBLIC NOMINEES LIMITED V S R KELLY HC AK CIV 2007-404-003493