New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ostensible/actual authority

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2019

SEABROOK v DRAIOCHT TRUST PARTNERSHIP LTD [2019] NZHC 3117

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3117
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because it was not clearly established that the NWT was bound by any deed of settlement: Nikola lacked apparent actual authority, the negotiations indicated parties only intended to be bound by a formal signed deed, and the draft deed contained additional unagreed terms; additionally the s 339 claim could not be resolved on summary judgment because service on the mortgagee (Westpac) had not been effected and there was insufficient evidence about the mortgagee's secured debt and potential hardship under s 342, so the RWT had not negated all outcomes other than an…
19 May 2017

LHL LEASING SOLUTIONS LIMITED v PINTO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1050

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1050
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff caused inordinate and inexcusable post-issue delay resulting in more-than-minimal prejudice to the defendant's ability to obtain a fair trial on the rent and maintenance claims (witnesses and records lost, dimmed memories, inadequate discovery), those causes of action were struck out; however the claim for failure to return equipment could proceed as a fair trial remained possible on that discrete issue; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed and no costs order was made.
26 Oct 2012

PONNIAH AND KAHUKIWA V PALMER AND VAN DIJK COA CA405/2012

Citation

COA CA405/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal fails because the trustees did not unanimously delegate to the settlor/manager authority to grant a mortgage over trust property; clause 7(v) of the trust deed only permits delegation to implement decisions properly made by trustees and does not empower an agent to make core decisions to give security over trust property; consequently the caveats could not be maintained and estoppel cannot validate an ultra vires delegation.
23 Feb 2006

PGG WRIGHTSON LTD V WAI SHING LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2003-404-6579

Citation

openlaw-d86250c3_7c2b_4397_89a9_8e7de8781a82.pdf
Court

High Court

Fruitfed failed to prove on the balance of probabilities the individual orders and deliveries underpinning the computer invoices and did not discharge the heightened evidential requirement for allegations of complicity or knowledge; defendants had credible contemporaneous reconciliations, amendments and letters of comfort showing they relied on representations by the branch manager and had no actual knowledge or sufficient suspicion that he exceeded authority; Fruitfed's administrative failures and estoppel principles defeat its attempts to re-open transactions, so the claims against Wai Shin…

New Zealand Case Law

SEABROOK v DRAIOCHT TRUST PARTNERSHIP LTD [2019] NZHC 3117

LHL LEASING SOLUTIONS LIMITED v PINTO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1050

PONNIAH AND KAHUKIWA V PALMER AND VAN DIJK COA CA405/2012

PGG WRIGHTSON LTD V WAI SHING LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2003-404-6579