New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Profit sharing

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2021

ROCKWELL ONE LIMITED v ASTORIA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (formerly MGK Development & Management Limited) [2021] NZHC 3036

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3036
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the payments became the SPC's property and were applied for their intended purpose via Astoria, the plaintiff received the contractual benefits it bargained for at the time (shares) and had no contractual right to require repayment of capital; the money had and received cause of action was not complete at the time of payment and the Fair Trading Act and contractual damages claims involved factual issues unsuitable for summary judgment.
22 Oct 2019

PATEL v PATEL [2019] NZHC 2705

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2705
Court

High Court

The parties formed a partnership governed by the Partnership Act 1908 in respect of the development of all three subdivided lots; partnership obligations required accounting and equitable treatment; the Wakefield Road house was part of plaintiff's contribution and valued at $55,000; $22,160 of plaintiff's claimed cash payments were proved; default rule of equal profit sharing applies; defendant breached obligations by refusing to account and must pay proven advances and contributions totaling $252,160 and the parties must quantify interest and remaining profit for equal distribution.
4 Sept 2013

SPINNAKER CAPITAL LIMITED v MOSS [2013] NZHC 2295

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2295
Court

High Court

The defendant failed to raise a real question to be tried on alleged misrepresentation, misleading conduct, lack of independent legal advice and subsequent dealings with the Strand property because the evidence showed the defendant had knowledge of the land issues, had been advised to obtain independent advice and the guarantee expressly preserved lender rights; however a genuine dispute remained as to the proper interest payable after 18 April 2012, the effect of a profit‑sharing arrangement and a small payment discrepancy, so summary judgment was entered only for the undisputed principal of…
23 Jul 2007

MCLEAN TOWER LTD AND ANOR V ASH ROAD INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOR CA CA284/06

Citation

openlaw-5d3af7d7_badf_4b5b_9d29_c3079ee66029.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The collateral letter and agreement were construed to leave the contract on foot beyond 31 October 2005 unless the appellants paid $375,000 on that date; because the subject matter was land (unique) and respondents had performed their part, specific performance was appropriate; Mr Begley was personally liable under his express undertaking in the collateral letter; the profit-sharing entitlement had expired under its three-month time limit and did not survive to give appellants ongoing rights to onsales.

New Zealand Case Law

ROCKWELL ONE LIMITED v ASTORIA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (formerly MGK Development & Management Limited) [2021] NZHC 3036

PATEL v PATEL [2019] NZHC 2705

SPINNAKER CAPITAL LIMITED v MOSS [2013] NZHC 2295

MCLEAN TOWER LTD AND ANOR V ASH ROAD INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOR CA CA284/06