New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Performance of contract

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2019

ARGOSY PROPERTY NO. 1 LIMITED v SPIRE KOOL LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3014

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3014
Court

High Court

The Court granted summary judgment and ordered specific performance because Argosy proved a valid, unconditional contract, the contractual mechanism for deferral of settlement and service of notice was properly exercised, Spire Kool had no defence or responsive steps, and no equitable reason existed to refuse specific performance; consequential orders fixed a new settlement date and required payment including accrued interest.
31 Aug 2011

NZNET INTERNET SERVICES LTD V SUPERDOCKETS ADVERTISING LTD HC AK CIV 2011-404-3577

Citation

openlaw-c55bd239_8b03_435f_8802_55ac33b02458.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable genuine and substantial dispute as to liability; respondent produced evidence of artwork plates and delivery codes showing performance (subject to three acknowledged errors and Christchurch closures); misrepresentation was not properly pleaded or supported; statutory demand was therefore not set aside and payment ordered.
21 Aug 2008

AMARCO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V AMBIENTI FRANSDEN ARCHITECTURE LIMITED (TRADING AS AMBIENTI) HC TAU CIV 2008-470-000381

Citation

openlaw-0aebbd6a_7057_4f46_9d0b_b8f80c697537.pdf
Court

High Court

Because there was a realistic dispute about whether the contracted work had been completed and the parties consented to a plan for resolving the disputed design points, the court adjourned the application sine die and imposed specific steps and deadlines (meeting, completion of amended working drawings by 17 September 2008, payment within seven days of delivery), rather than deciding the set‑aside application on the merits.
21 Aug 2008

AMARCO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V AMBIENTI FRANSDEN ARCHITECTURE LIMITED (TRADING AS AMBIENTI) HC TAU CIV 2008-470-000381

Citation

openlaw-54d7af78_7cc2_4858_a649_83e43883c514.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found that the dispute about whether the contract was fully performed could be resolved by allowing Ambienti an opportunity to correct the five identified design issues; rather than decide the genuine dispute on the papers the court adjourned the application by consent on terms requiring Ambienti to amend and deliver final working drawings by 17 September 2008 and Amarco to pay $10,712.02 within seven days of delivery, with costs to date to lie where they fall and leave to apply for a telephone conference if non-compliance occurs.

New Zealand Case Law

ARGOSY PROPERTY NO. 1 LIMITED v SPIRE KOOL LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3014

NZNET INTERNET SERVICES LTD V SUPERDOCKETS ADVERTISING LTD HC AK CIV 2011-404-3577

AMARCO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V AMBIENTI FRANSDEN ARCHITECTURE LIMITED (TRADING AS AMBIENTI) HC TAU CIV 2008-470-000381

AMARCO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V AMBIENTI FRANSDEN ARCHITECTURE LIMITED (TRADING AS AMBIENTI) HC TAU CIV 2008-470-000381