New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parol evidence rule

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2021

MAHASIVAM v THURAISINGHAM [2021] NZHC 3221

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3221
Court

High Court

On the summary judgment application the Court found there is a reasonably arguable defence that no partnership in substance existed despite the signed 'Partnership Agreement' because of inconsistencies between the document and the parties' conduct (no partnership accounts, no tax/IRD registration, defendant's unilateral purchase of property, differing capital figures, plaintiff's demand for repayment inconsistent with partnership capital treatment), and because disputed factual and credibility issues require a trial; consequently the statutory duty in s 54 and contractual disclosure obligatio…
17 Mar 2021

GRP HOLDINGS LIMITED v VP NOMINEES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 545

Citation

(2021) 21 NZCPR 915
Court

High Court

The Court held GRP had a reasonably arguable case on multiple grounds such that the caveat should be sustained: there is at least an arguable basis that an agreed pre-settlement inspection existed (rectification/agency/mistake/estoppel issues), that methamphetamine contamination engaged cl 5.2(2) and that the cl 8.4 procedure for interim deduction was triggered and not followed by the vendor, and that misrepresentation claims under the CCLA/FTA were reasonably arguable; accordingly VP Nominees could not be regarded as in all material respects ready, willing and able to settle when it purporte…
25 Sept 2019

MILLS v DICKINSON [2019] NZHC 2431

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2431
Court

High Court

The vendor is bound by her solicitor's clear confirmations that clause 19 was satisfied by actual or ostensible authority; plaintiffs relied on that representation and the defendant has no tenable defence on summary judgment, entitling plaintiffs to specific performance of the sale contract.
29 Sept 2015

MULLIGAN v RHODES [2015] NZHC 2369

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2369
Court

High Court

The deed of acknowledgment of debt was a clear, binding written agreement admitting indebtedness and repayable on demand; parol evidence could not be used to contradict the deed, there was no arguable case that the deed was a sham, and the defendant failed to show a substantial ground of defence such that setting aside the summary judgment was required.
8 Jul 2015

CHEN v HE [2015] NZHC 1593

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1593
Court

High Court

The written acknowledgement is clear and unambiguous and, on the factual matrix, the extrinsic evidence does not establish the alleged oral roll‑over trust arrangement; the advance was a personal loan of NZD 300,000 repayable within six months with interest as specified, so judgment for the plaintiff follows.
18 Apr 2013

ZHANG V DONG HC AK CIV-2012-404-2223

Citation

openlaw-749a7c6d_9365_4f89_a550_2f215cf523b9.pdf
Court

High Court

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that an antecedent oral agreement existed making the NZ$1,000,000 a loan secured by a temporary transfer of shares; this was proven by contemporaneous actions (no beneficial exercise of shareholder rights, no due diligence, salary paid without work, payments described as interest, subsequent draft loan/security agreements and emails) and credibility findings; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for repayment plus interest.
12 Oct 2012

ELVIDGE V ASB BANK LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2011-441-000811

Citation

openlaw-39e1eaaf_6bfc_41b1_80ab_a7876c87c105.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered that the defendant be provided with an unredacted copy of the deed of assignment restricted to defendant's legal advisors, adjourned the particulars application pending non-party discovery, and granted security for costs in two staggered tranches totalling NZD 62,500 (NZD 25,000 and NZD 37,500) because the plaintiffs had not proved their impecuniosity was likely caused by the bank and the plaintiffs' claim had limited prospects such that security was appropriate.
4 Apr 2012

RAHOPARA FARMS LIMITED V FIONA ANNE TAYLOR HC AK CIV-2011-404-4857

Citation

openlaw-f40e28d4_305d_46b0_b8df_64d8fe6a98e4.pdf
Court

High Court

The written sale agreement including clause 6.2(5) unambiguously warranted that any required permits/consents/CCCs existed and were complied with; the defendant's asserted oral 'as is, where is' term contradicted the written contract and lacked sufficient contemporaneous or unequivocal evidence to establish a collateral contract or estoppel; accordingly the defendant has no arguable defence to liability and summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability is appropriate, with a trial ordered for quantum.
15 Oct 2008

MARY GRAY V PAUL STEVENSON AND KAREN GRAY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1935

Citation

openlaw-d3863505_b8fb_4c14_8dcf_f6e7725e9a8b.pdf
Court

High Court

The written mortgage fixed repayment in October 2007 and any alleged oral agreement to review or extend that term was too uncertain and unenforceable; the respondents’ counterclaim for lack of a Code Compliance Certificate was unquantified and therefore did not bar summary judgment; although there was evidence that could make duress arguable, the respondents subsequently affirmed the Term Loan Agreement by paying $10,000 (with knowledge it could only discharge the term loan), so the $10,000 was correctly applied to the term loan; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for $80,000 (mortg…
25 Jun 2008

TOTARANUI INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR V CDA PACIFIC LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2008 409 153

Citation

openlaw-14b710c1_76e3_4a5b_8d65_a21272b8c564.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there was a real and seriously arguable case, supported by evidence of pre-contractual negotiations and subsequent conduct, that the written agreements might not record the whole bargain and that extrinsic evidence could be admissible to show the parties intended CDA Pacific not to be liable; therefore the defence could not be resolved on affidavits alone and required trial.