New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reopening credit contracts

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2023

MEGA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED v PEARLFISHER CAPITAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 749

Citation

[2023] NZHC 749
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because Mega Capital failed to show it was reasonably arguable the credit contracts were oppressive under the CCCFA: Mega Capital was a sophisticated commercial borrower with legal and professional advice, fees and timing were disclosed and negotiated, Pearlfisher provided a commercially rational explanation for fee structure and risk, and the fees were not so excessive on their face in context to justify reopening the contracts; therefore there was no substantial dispute as required to set aside the statutory demand.
28 Jun 2019

MILLS v THE ASB BANK LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1505

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1505
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court: Mr Peterson lacked standing and all his claims were rightly struck out; Ms Mills' allegations of oppression and negligence disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and summary judgment was appropriate on those causes; only Ms Mills' claim for breach of s22 CCCFA remained as an arguable cause of action to be tried; the costs award to ASB was proper and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Nov 2018

SPTC LTD v COOPER [2018] NZHC 3139

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3139
Court

High Court

The court found plaintiffs failed to establish any special disadvantage or undue influence: Mrs Cooper had prior experience with guarantees, there was evidence she understood implications and had previously received legal advice; PJAFT was not put on notice of any vulnerability and took reasonable steps proportionate to a private lender; accordingly guarantees and second mortgage were valid, the plaintiffs' causes of action failed, the without‑notice injunction was lifted and defendant awarded costs.
25 Oct 2017

DINERS CLUB (NZ) LIMITED v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2017] NZHC 2616 [25 October 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2616
Court

High Court

Section 120 of the CCCFA, read in light of its consumer‑protection purpose, permits a court to reopen an oppressive credit contract on its own motion in any proceedings; Rule 15.7 of the District Court Rules confers a discretion to seal default judgment for an undefended liquidated demand and does not oblige sealing in every case; when directing a formal proof the court must give succinct notice of the concerns to the creditor but need not provide extensive reasons at that stage.
4 Jun 2013

WILTSHIRE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v SYMONS [2013] NZHC 1300

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1300
Court

High Court

Disclosure of the settlement deeds demonstrated no collateral benefits beyond the $1,400,000 receipt; clauses complained of were lawful commercial terms entered into by Wiltshire and the receiver acting within duties under the Receiverships Act; the allegations of bad faith, oppressive conduct, fiduciary breach and interference in the receivership did not meet legal thresholds to discharge guarantors or to reopen credit contracts; the Fibroin guarantee is a separate facility and not reopenable on these facts; accordingly plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the guarantees.
30 Jul 2012

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V COLLEY & ANOR HC AK CIV-2011-404-998

Citation

openlaw-51aaf9c8_3384_436b_83eb_faaaa81c79dd.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was appropriate against Mr Colley because the Company was insolvent, repeatedly breached covenants, independent reports confirmed incapacity to pay, and Westpac's conduct did not amount to oppressive exercise of contractual powers under the CCCFA; however summary judgment was declined as to Mrs Colley because she raised an arguable oppression defence given her guarantee and claimed lack of notice of increases to the facility.
3 Dec 2010

GE CUSTODIANS V BARTLE AND BARTLE AND ANOR SC 52/2010

Citation

SC 52/2010
Court

Supreme Court

A credit contract will not be treated as oppressive under the CCCF Act unless the lender knew or ought to have known of circumstances rendering it oppressive; reliance on independent and apparently competent legal advice by the borrower relieves the lender from further inquiry except in rare or obvious cases where no solicitor could properly advise signature; absent agency or attributable knowledge of the intermediary, GE was not liable and the Court of Appeal's finding of oppression was incorrect.
6 May 2010

BRUCE LEONARD BARTLE AND DOROTHY JUDITH BARTLE AND ANOR V GE CUSTODIANS LIMITED AND ORS CA627/2009

Citation

openlaw-a3aedf5a_fe51_4058_8681_c7b72be9dd09.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the loan agreements were oppressive under the CCCF Act because GE advanced high‑LVR Fastdoc asset loans to elderly pensioners without adequate inquiry into serviceability, the overall transaction was fractured and dependent on a speculative joint venture, TML performed critical origination and enquiry functions and its knowledge/conduct is attributable to GE, and the borrowers were poorly advised; accordingly the contracts are reopenable and the matter is remitted to the High Court for appropriate remedies.