28 Aug 2020
The Court declined to grant ex parte interim injunctive relief but, because the balance of convenience favoured preserving the applicants' position, accepted the respondent's undertaking not to accept any tender offer or enter into any sale and purchase agreement before 12 noon on 11 September 2020 and issued timetabling directions for an expedited interim hearing.
30 Apr 2020
The Court held the Council acted within the statutory framework and its discretion under the LGA: material new information (TBIG cost/risk estimates, contamination uncertainties and an alternative 50m pool proposal in Hastings) made the 50m Onekawa option no longer reasonably practicable; the consultation document fairly presented the options and rates and was supported by Audit New Zealand; councillors received adequate information and opportunity to deliberate; the SEP amendment did not unlawfully require consultation in the circumstances; and the tender scope approval by casting vote was l…
30 Apr 2019
Summary judgment dismissed because there is an arguable factual and legal case that the parties had a common objective to secure the tender (creating an option) and that communications and emails could support an inchoate joint venture or fiduciary obligations; material factual disputes, incomplete discovery and the possibility of repleading make summary disposal inappropriate.
31 May 2017
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granted leave to adduce further evidence undermining the High Court finding that the director understood English, and held that if the appellant's evidence is accepted it discloses an arguable non est factum defence (document fundamentally different from intended and potentially reasonable reliance on the agent) such that summary judgment was inappropriate and the matter must proceed to trial.
19 Feb 2014
The RFP created a seriously arguable legitimate procedural expectation that material changes to the basis of appointment (eg from two/three providers to one) would be notified by written amendment allowing tenderers to re-submit proposals; Telco reasonably relied on that representation to its detriment; there is a serious question to be tried and interim relief is necessary to preserve Telco's position and overall justice favors granting an interim order preventing the Ministry from giving effect to its appointment of a single supplier pending the substantive hearing.
19 Nov 2013
The Court of Appeal held that on the true construction of the specific tender documents the Council had reserved a legitimate discretion at Stage Two to evaluate the price attribute (including consideration of waste diversion benefits) and to accept a tender other than the lowest; on the facts the Council did not breach any implied duty to act fairly nor engage in misleading or deceptive conduct, so the High Court judgment awarding damages to RAL was set aside and judgment entered for the Council.
8 Jun 2012
The Council breached the express terms of its tender process and an implied duty of fairness by evaluating tenders on undeclared criteria (net cost to ratepayer arising from waste diversion and landfill space savings) and by awarding the contract to a non-lowest tender; where a two-stage lowest price conforming method is adopted the authority, if it elects to award, must award to the lowest conforming tender; RAL proved on the balance of probabilities that it would have been awarded the two-year contract and sustained agreed loss of $330,634 plus GST.
14 May 2012
Given the trustees presented the post-deadline agreements expressly as a package, combined with their prior obstructive conduct, late timing and lack of assurances, ANZ reasonably chose the certainty of properly tendered sales and did not breach s176; the defendant has no real defence and summary judgment is appropriate.
15 Dec 2011
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried on breach of contract, equitable estoppel, negligence or legitimate expectation because the council's statements were gratuitous, there was no evidentially established binding process contract or sufficient detrimental reliance, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the tender process to proceed; accordingly the interim injunction was refused.
22 Nov 2011
The Court held that, applying the broad Peruvian Guano test, the defendants must provide further and better discovery because the "full set of tender documents" referred to in the request to tender and the Head Contract (CA2143) and its Variation with NZTA are potentially relevant to the existence of any process contract and to procurement/fair dealing expectations; defendants must file an r 8.24 affidavit and produce those documents within 10 working days.