New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2023

HARSONO v FANG [2023] NZHC 3717

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3717
Court

High Court

The defendant established an arguable defence that the parties agreed in the 26 January 2023 WeChat exchange to defer settlement for one year and to waive default interest; that defence raised a real question to be tried and accordingly summary judgment for specific performance was dismissed. The estoppel claim lacked adequate evidential foundation of detrimental reliance for determination on this summary judgment application.
28 Nov 2023

THOMPSON v BASSETT [2023] NZHC 3390

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3390
Court

High Court

Plaintiff was successful in achieving the settlement sought and is therefore entitled to costs on a 2B scale; indemnity or increased costs were not justified because the defendants acted reasonably in defending once proceedings were issued and their conduct did not meet the threshold for indemnity or increased costs; specific adjustments to the claimed costs were required for certain steps.
14 Aug 2023

HURITU & ORS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 2173

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2173
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its broad discretion under High Court Rule 10.2 to adjourn the trial because the parties jointly demonstrated an interim settlement process that made it unrealistic the proceedings would require a contested trial; simultaneously the Court dismissed the proceedings of four plaintiffs for want of prosecution under Rule 15.2 because those plaintiffs had failed to comply with directions, effectively abandoned their claims, and continued prosecution would constitute misuse of the judicial process; confidentiality and publication suppression orders were justified to preserve the…
18 Jul 2023

BUILDING BRILLIANT NZ LIMITED v STAR FIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1857

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1857
Court

High Court

The applicant's conduct in continuing the application after settlement discussions was not sufficiently vexatious, unnecessary or unreasonable to justify indemnity costs or any costs; the settlement was effectively in place by part‑performance but clause 128 did not apply to entitle indemnity costs; therefore costs are ordered to lie where they fall and no declaration that $143,228.50 is a liquidated sum is appropriate in these proceedings.
10 Mar 2023

McKINLAY v WHITBURN [2023] NZHC 468

Citation

[2023] NZHC 468
Court

High Court

The 2016 settlement agreement displaced the conditionality in special condition 18 so the vendors had an unqualified contractual obligation to obtain the specified compliance documents within a reasonable time; a reasonable time has elapsed, the vendors are in breach and cannot rely on frustration or their own failures; summary judgment is granted for the Whitburns on liability, but specific performance and the purchasers' request to have the entire purchase monies held by the Registrar are not granted at summary judgment and remain for trial to determine remedies and quantification of damage…
8 Dec 2022

LEGGETT v COLEY [2022] NZHC 3297

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3297
Court

High Court

Because the settlement represented a compromise with mutual undertakings, there was no court determination of the merits and no evidence of unreasonable conduct, the court could not identify a successful party and therefore ordered that costs lie where they fall.
22 Nov 2022

HARGUN SINGH v XIEYAN MAO [2022] NZHC 3046

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3046
Court

High Court

Purchaser was not required to have completed settlement to be entitled to penalty interest under cl 3.13(2)(a)(ii); the letter of 16 September 2020 satisfied cl 10.3 in substance; purchaser entitled to penalty interest from 16 September 2020 to 30 September 2022 calculated per the agreement with a credit for trust account interest under cl 3.13(2)(b); vendor not entitled to penalty interest for 30 September 2022 to 20 October 2022; parties to agree calculations or return to Court.
28 Sept 2022

LI v XIE [2022] NZHC 2471

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2471
Court

High Court

On the papers the settlement reflected compromise and did not disclose a clear winner; pre‑trial settlement letters did not amount to effective withdrawal of the pleaded counterclaim and the amended counterclaim was filed without leave and therefore does not count for costs purposes; accordingly costs should lie where they fall at least until the commencement of the hearing on 4 July 2022 (and through the period 19 April–4 July 2022).
26 Apr 2022

COMMERCE COMMISSION v REAL FINANCE LIMITED [2022] NZHC 823

Citation

[2022] NZHC 823
Court

High Court

Real Finance admitted it charged establishment, administration and default fees that did not meet the transaction-specific cost requirement of s 41 CCCFA as articulated in Sportzone; because the admissions and settlement made declaratory relief useful for public guidance and deterrence, the Court granted declarations that the fees were unreasonable for the stated period.
30 Mar 2022

GRACE v ORION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 616

Citation

[2022] NZHC 616
Court

High Court

Refusal: The request failed to satisfy r 11(2)(a), (c) and (d) by not identifying the applicant's client, not specifying a sufficiently particularised purpose or proposed conditions, and disclosure would offend the orderly and fair administration of justice under r 12(a) given settlement between parties, incomplete pleadings and a pending appeal, so access is declined.