New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment claims and schedules

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2020

HY TOURISM LIMITED v THREE DUKES HOME LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2051

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2051
Court

High Court

The Court applied the Kariiti two‑limb test and found Hy Tourism failed to show (a) a high degree of likelihood that Three Dukes would be unable to repay the adjudicated amount and (b) a good arguable case on the substantive proceedings; accordingly the application to vary orders and stay enforcement was dismissed and the adjudicator's determination stands, subject to Three Dukes providing security and an undertaking as directed.
1 Feb 2017

AUCKLAND ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS LTD v THE WARRINGTON GROUP LTD [2017] NZHC 55

Citation

[2017] NZHC 55
Court

High Court

Respondent awarded increased costs of $10,865.55 because it succeeded, the appellant unreasonably pursued summary judgment and an appeal in respect of a modest dispute that should have been resolved in the Disputes Tribunal, the summary judgment application lacked merit due to credibility issues that required trial, and the appellant unreasonably refused a reasonable settlement offer; there was insufficient evidence to justify a non-party costs order against Mr John Campbell.
21 Oct 2011

HERBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED V PI ALEXANDER, BE ALEXANDER, MJ MOLLIER AND MP WARD IN PARTNERSHIP TRADING AS THE CHRISTIE CROWN PARTNERSHIP HC NAP CIV-2011-441-500

Citation

openlaw-92cc99dc_144f_4351_b49c_c6e797e54695.pdf
Court

High Court

The reissued payment claims complied with the Act's form requirements and were validly brought to the payer's attention; no valid payment schedule was issued in response to those reissued claims so under ss22–23 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 the claimed amount became a debt payable and the defendants cannot rely on set-off under s79; consequently there is no real defence and summary judgment is appropriate for the claimed amount.
19 Feb 2010

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-6292

Citation

openlaw-80079505_ecbe_4dfd_b9ff_12b6378f3783.pdf
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because there was a genuine and substantial dispute as to whether the debt was owing and due: Claverdon could not establish the alleged oral variations had been agreed and there was an arguable case that annexure A constituted an agreed payment mechanism under the Construction Contracts Act which meant the claimed amount was not yet due under s 22.
14 Jul 2009

PLIMMERTON COURTYARD LIMITED V KEITH RICHARD HUNTINGTON AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2009-485-772

Citation

openlaw-87aa54c2_3bb7_4f7f_96aa_0005825a0aba.pdf
Court

High Court

Because there was a reasonably arguable case that the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by determining entitlement to stop work through an 'off-setting' approach inconsistent with s72 and the statutory payment scheme, and because the adjudication did not plainly authorise the District Court to award $100,000 remedial costs, interim relief restraining enforcement of the adjudication pending judicial review was justified and granted pursuant to s8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972.
12 Jun 2009

SPARK IT UP LIMITED V DIMAC CONTRACTORS LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2008-485-1706

Citation

openlaw-35b892cd_a9b0_4aaa_b0f9_0ca82ffa0d9e.pdf
Court

High Court

The adjudicator acted beyond his jurisdiction by deciding the dispute on invoices that were not the subject of the notice of adjudication and breached natural justice by not affording Spark It Up a reasonable opportunity to respond to the amended claim; accordingly the adjudicator's determination is quashed; claims that the adjudicator failed to consider the statutory declaration or that the decision was unreasonable were not made out.
13 Sept 2006

CONSTRUCTION SERVICE COMPANY (WELLINGTON) LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V WELLINGTON WATERFRONT LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-485-1117

Citation

openlaw-1f61f927_9d3b_413c_b29b_1f3e09e531e7.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment dismissed because defendant established a properly arguable defence that clause 14.2.3 of the contract, operating after the principal resumed possession, deferred contractor entitlement to further payment until completion and final wash‑up; accordingly the Court could not be satisfied the statutory circumstances for ss23/24 recovery (payment due and unpaid by due date) unanswerably existed.

New Zealand Case Law

HY TOURISM LIMITED v THREE DUKES HOME LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2051

AUCKLAND ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS LTD v THE WARRINGTON GROUP LTD [2017] NZHC 55

HERBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED V PI ALEXANDER, BE ALEXANDER, MJ MOLLIER AND MP WARD IN PARTNERSHIP TRADING AS THE CHRISTIE CROWN PARTNERSHIP HC NAP CIV-2011-441-500

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-6292

PLIMMERTON COURTYARD LIMITED V KEITH RICHARD HUNTINGTON AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2009-485-772

SPARK IT UP LIMITED V DIMAC CONTRACTORS LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2008-485-1706

CONSTRUCTION SERVICE COMPANY (WELLINGTON) LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V WELLINGTON WATERFRONT LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-485-1117