New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Penalty rule

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 2020

MATAPIRO OLIVES (2008) LIMITED v THE OLIVE PRESS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1394

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1394
Court

High Court

The agreement was a take or pay contract: Matapiro was obliged to pay for processing of a minimum of 250 tonnes at the agreed rate despite consigning no olives in 2019; The Olive Press therefore held a liquidated debt and the statutory demand was valid; Matapiro's application to set aside was dismissed and Matapiro was ordered to pay within 15 working days, failing which The Olive Press may apply to liquidate the company.
27 Jun 2019

127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2019] NZSC 62

Citation

[2019] NZSC 62
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the indemnity clause was a penalty; the Court of Appeal had concluded the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties and that conclusion is the subject of the appeal.
31 Jan 2018

HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LTD v 127 HOBSON STREET LTD [2018] NZHC 32

Citation

[2018] 3 NZLR 330
Court

High Court

The indemnity in clause 2 of the Collateral Deed engaged the penalty doctrine as a secondary sanction securing installation of the lift but, applying the proportionality/performance interest test, it was not out of all proportion or unconscionable in context and therefore was enforceable to indemnify plaintiffs for rent and outgoings up to the date the second lift became operational; the claim of an unconscionable bargain failed. The Court reserved further consideration of equitable relief against forfeiture for the post-installation period and ordered memoranda on that issue and costs.
14 Jul 2017

TORCHLIGHT FUND NO 1 LP (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v WILACI PTY LIMITED [2017] NZSC 112 [14 July 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZSC 112
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the dispute was governed by New South Wales law and the Court could not depart from the High Court of Australia authority in Paciocco; the Court of Appeal had correctly applied that authority to the particular factual context (sophisticated parties, independent advice, exceptional risk to lender) and no issue of sufficient general or public importance or clear error requiring correction was shown.

New Zealand Case Law

MATAPIRO OLIVES (2008) LIMITED v THE OLIVE PRESS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1394

127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2019] NZSC 62

HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LTD v 127 HOBSON STREET LTD [2018] NZHC 32

TORCHLIGHT FUND NO 1 LP (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v WILACI PTY LIMITED [2017] NZSC 112 [14 July 2017]