New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Term loan agreement

  • 17 Jul 2023

    LIU v HE [2023] NZHC 1848

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 1848
    Court
    High Court

    Leave to file the second amended statement of claim was granted because the defendant consented and the trial date could be maintained; the application for an order for the taking of an account was dismissed because liability to the plaintiffs has not been established, the application amounted to a fishing expedition seeking further discovery rather than a proper account, the GST issue could be addressed without a full account, and relevant documents had already been discovered; further discovery orders were declined given the imminence of trial and existing disclosure; costs awarded to defen…

  • 12 Jun 2020

    WILLOCK v HUNT [2020] NZHC 1325

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 1325
    Court
    High Court

    The Term Loan Agreement was not a consumer credit contract for the CCCF Act (loan was for an investment/company purpose), so ss 9C and 40 did not apply. The May/June 2011 Deed validly varied the Term Loan Agreement, created a Current Debt of $483,840 and suspended interest pending demand but permitted the lender to demand repayment and seek interest on default. Although the borrower defaulted by failing to make the March 2012 payment under the Deed, interest did not start to accrue until the lender made demand. The 19 March 2018 letter of demand, which fixed a repayment date of 2 May 2018, co…

  • 9 May 2017

    WAIPURU INVESTMENTS LTD & ORS v BISHOP & ORS [2017] NZHC 924

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 924
    Court
    High Court

    The Court refused to immediately award the full claimed indemnity costs of $117,275+GST. Applying the Black v ASB Bank Ltd criteria the Court found the claimed sum excessive given the straightforward, unopposed nature of the application and required further evidence from plaintiffs' solicitors and counsel to demonstrate that each task was contemplated by the indemnity, reasonably necessary, and charged at a reasonable rate; the costs claim was adjourned pending that material with the possibility of taxation, Law Society referral, or appointment of counsel to assist the Court.

  • 12 Nov 2009

    HEALTH DISTRIBUTORS LTD V WRIGHT HC HAM CIV 2009-419-607

    Citation
    openlaw-8b90c0a7_9b6e_4c7a_b687_15cd5c6b7c90.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The contracts executed on 1 July 2008 unambiguously established Wright's indebtedness of $1.3m and Wright has not adduced particulars or evidence to show an arguable defence of fiduciary breach or sham; accordingly there is no real prospect of defence and summary judgment for the full $1.3m plus interest is warranted.