New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Service contracts

  • 10 Feb 2022

    BODY CORPORATE S90876 v PALMER TRADING LIMITED [2022] NZHC 146

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 146
    Court
    High Court

    Rule 2.3.9 of the 2004 Body Corporate Rules was valid and limited caretaking agreements to an initial five‑year term and reserved to the Body Corporate the power to decide renewals; the Caretaking Agreement's automatic long‑term renewal mechanism deprived the Body Corporate of that power and was therefore ultra vires to the extent it provided for automatic renewals beyond the initial five years; because the Aspen Villas control period ended by 6 November 2002 the Court had no jurisdiction under s140(5) UTA 2010 to set aside the agreement as harsh and unconscionable; accordingly the Caretaking…

  • 26 Feb 2015

    BODY CORPORATE 401803 v VERMILLION WAGENER LTD [2014] NZHC 285

    Citation
    BODY CORPORATE 401803 v VERMILLION WAGENER LTD [2014] NZHC 285
    Court
    High Court

    The Court held that the Apartment Lease and Amenities Lease guarantees were ultra vires and void because no duty in the Act or amended rules authorized the body corporate to enter long-term third‑party lease/guarantee arrangements and cl (b) of the Amenities guarantee conferred lessee‑like treatment inconsistent with s37(5). Clause 3.4 of the Management Agreement (except reimbursement of mobile phone costs) repeated and reinforced those ultra vires guarantees and is therefore void. The Court declined to grant relief under s140 UTA 2010 and declined summary disposal of the s140 claim due to pr…