New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement deed

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2022

CRIFFEL DEER LIMITED v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (COSTS) [2022] NZHC 2418 [21 September 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2418
Court

High Court

The facility agreement indemnity covered ANZ's defence of the proceedings, but the indemnity entitlement does not automatically require payment of the full actual costs claimed; the court must assess whether the claimed costs were reasonably incurred. Given the limited issues (limitation and settlement deed) and the disproportionate gap between scaled costs and ANZ's claimed actual costs, many steps were unnecessary. Applying the Black framework and the court's discretion, a 40% reduction of ANZ's claimed actual costs was appropriate, resulting in an award of indemnity costs of $150,917.55 pl…
24 Jun 2021

ZHOU v ZHOU [2021] NZHC 1515

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1515
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for summary judgment was granted, but summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant did not discharge the heavy onus required to show the plaintiff had no arguable answer: material gaps existed in the evidential chain (notably absence of evidence of transmission of the executed Deed from the plaintiff's lawyer to the defendant's lawyer and of circumstances of execution), the forgery allegation had some credible evidentiary support and inconsistencies in the record made resolution on affidavit alone inappropriate, therefore full discovery and likely oral evidence are requ…
25 Nov 2020

MORISON v SAHA [2020] NZHC 3123

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3123
Court

High Court

Although the settled accounts established the partnership debt, the singular treatment of the appellant in the settlement deeds and the existence of a separate deed limiting recovery to $195,000 raised factual issues about the deeds' context and effect that could not properly be resolved on summary judgment; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the District Court judgment was quashed and remitted for trial.
11 Dec 2014

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v ROSS & ORS [2014] NZHC 3184

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3184
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the Law Society assessor's finding that the fees charged were reasonable and, given those fees fell within the scope of existing orders authorising payment of legal costs from the first defendant's assets, granted an order directing payment of $217,904.46 plus interest held in Chapman Tripp's trust account to Chapman Tripp to discharge outstanding fees.
29 Aug 2013

LANGSTON v MOUNT HUTT HELICOPTERS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2226

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2226
Court

High Court

Court refused to postpone fixing costs pending the appeal, treated the ruling as effectively determinative of the affirmative defence for costs purposes, limited recoverable costs to those directly incurred to argue the affirmative defence (allowing Schedule 3 analogues items 30,31,33,34 for three days at Category 2 rate plus the undisputed setting down fee), and ordered the defendant to pay $9,111.80.
9 Nov 2012

SAYES v TAMATEKAPUA COA CA181/2011

Citation

COA CA181/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The deed required valuation of 'current market value' by the nominated valuer Seagar & Partners; Seagar & Partners valued the property at $4,311,000 excluding GST and there was no challenge to that valuation; market value is determined by a hypothetical willing vendor/purchaser and does not vary with the GST status of an actual beneficiary or hypothetical purchaser; therefore the correct valuation under the deed is GST exclusive $4,311,000 and the appeal is dismissed.
23 Nov 2009

SANDRA LYNN MORRISON-LOVE V THERMOCRETE LIMITED HC NWP CIV-2009-443-156

Citation

openlaw-581a38b9_2bdb_4e0a_88b4_1ca055918b96.pdf
Court

High Court

The deed, considered in its factual context and terms, constituted a full and final settlement capping Thermocrete's recoverable sum at $14,000 ($6,000 paid and $8,000 final); Thermocrete could not thereafter revise invoices and claim an additional $4,995.15, so that portion of the default judgment was wrongly entered and is set aside while the $8,000 and costs remain payable.
8 Oct 2009

OROPI PARK LTD V A & R BETHLEHEM HEIGHTS LTD HC TAU CIV 2009-470-000287

Citation

openlaw-f116a765_6c24_43ab_8794_a27468701ec6.pdf
Court

High Court

The settlement deed and construction contract, read in their commercial background, required defects be 'shown' to be caused by A & R and for A & R to be given opportunity to remedy before retention funds could be accessed; Oropi failed to show causation or follow the deed's procedures; clause 5 obliged payment of the final certified amount and the contract and deed precluded the equitable set-off alleged; accordingly A & R was entitled to summary judgment for the certified sum and for the retained funds paid out to a third party together with interest.
16 Jul 2008

CONSOLIDATED TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT (NZ) LIMITED V BRYERS HC AK CIV 2007-404-8012

Citation

openlaw-b9fa1d5d_9fad_407b_96c5_7d575d845814.pdf
Court

High Court

Clauses 6 and 7 of the settlement deed unambiguously constituted binding agreements to sell the lots and incorporated the ADLS standard terms by reference; there was no requirement for separate execution of ADLS-form agreements, the defendant never sought such agreements and provided no evidential foundation for a bona fide defence, therefore summary judgment for specific performance was appropriate, requiring payment of the purchase price and losses (including specified daily interest).
13 Feb 2008

WILTSHIRE INVESTMENTS LTD V HALSTEAD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-006473

Citation

openlaw-7afa3bd3_1a27_42e5_80ea_41951c63eca2.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 5 of the Settlement Deed operated as an enforceable indemnity in favour of Halstead for the liabilities he paid or incurred in settling Wiltshire Investments Limited's claim; in the absence of opposition and subject to the limitation that liability is to trust assets, judgment should be entered for Halstead for the sums covered by that indemnity.