New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Oppressive conduct under cccfa

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2019

MILLS v THE ASB BANK LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1505

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1505
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court: Mr Peterson lacked standing and all his claims were rightly struck out; Ms Mills' allegations of oppression and negligence disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and summary judgment was appropriate on those causes; only Ms Mills' claim for breach of s22 CCCFA remained as an arguable cause of action to be tried; the costs award to ASB was proper and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Jul 2012

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V COLLEY & ANOR HC AK CIV-2011-404-998

Citation

openlaw-51aaf9c8_3384_436b_83eb_faaaa81c79dd.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was appropriate against Mr Colley because the Company was insolvent, repeatedly breached covenants, independent reports confirmed incapacity to pay, and Westpac's conduct did not amount to oppressive exercise of contractual powers under the CCCFA; however summary judgment was declined as to Mrs Colley because she raised an arguable oppression defence given her guarantee and claimed lack of notice of increases to the facility.