New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination clauses

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2015

MCLEAN v MARSHALL [2015] NZCA 370

Citation

[2015] NZCA 370
Court

Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred by misconstruing the appellant's claim as costs to complete an unfinished system rather than costs to restore the source code to its termination-state; because liability for the breach (failure to provide termination-date source code) was found but evidence of quantum and causation was inadequately addressed, the dismissal of the $103,033.08 claim was set aside and the question of quantum remitted for rehearing so the specific loss and its causation can be properly proven.
29 Jun 2015

CCPP PROPERTIES LTD v GO-BUS TRANSPORT LTD [2015] NZHC 1471

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1471
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the arbitrator had considered and rejected the submission that a term requiring exercise of the termination right within a reasonable time should be implied; there was no strong arguable legal error and no basis to displace the arbitrator's fact-sensitive conclusion that no such term should be implied.
5 Dec 2013

ISAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MANAGH [2013] NZHC 3242

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3242
Court

High Court

Court held ISAC had given adequate written notice under clause 10.3 and validly terminated so clause 11.2 could apply; CEO (Dr Bellringer) had actual authority to enter the 2011 contract and GHL was bound; liquidator's categorical rejection on grounds of lack of authority and data-loss was incorrect; however on the available evidence the Court could not determine whether clause 11.2 was an unenforceable penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of loss and could not quantify damages, so it directed the liquidator under s 284 to reconsider the proof of debt with specified information and not to reject…
12 Apr 2013

KAKARA ESTATE LIMITED V SAVVY VINEYARDS 3552 LIMITED COA CA178/2012

Citation

COA CA178/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 1.2(c) expands the class of "party" to include original parties and their assigns, but the 2009 transfers from Goldridge to the Savvy companies were assignments not novations because Kakara never consented to the proposed novation (it was asked to sign the deed of novation and declined to do so) and the subsequent conduct of Kakara was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to infer consent to create a new contract substituting the Savvy companies for Goldridge; therefore Goldridge remained a party whose liquidation validly triggered termination and the High Court declarations in favou…
27 Mar 2012

IKE V NEW ZEALAND COURIERS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-000648

Citation

openlaw-08bc02bc_53d8_486c_b3a6_29a9feab2bfe.pdf
Court

High Court

Clauses 16.1 and 16.2 are disjunctive; clause 16.1(c) permitted the Company to terminate forthwith for two breaches of clause 12 within any 60-day period without an obligation to allow remediation or to follow a fair process; no overarching duty of procedural fairness is implied into this contract for services; admissible evidence (the 2 May 2008 warning/termination letter together with an email screenshot evidencing a delivery without signature) was sufficient to establish the second breach and justify termination; accordingly the District Court judgment for the respondent was correct and th…
29 Nov 2006

MR GREEN HOME SERVICES FRANCHISE CO LIMITED V WALL HC TIM CIV-2006-0476-000474

Citation

openlaw-0a154f35_c988_4a58_b9d6_557aaca7ea22.pdf
Court

High Court

Because clause 5.2 entitled the respondent to terminate immediately upon failure of the applicant to achieve the agreed performance and the respondent exercised that right before the applicant's three‑month notice under clause 5.5 took effect, there was no serious dispute about liability and the application to set aside the statutory demand failed.

New Zealand Case Law

MCLEAN v MARSHALL [2015] NZCA 370

CCPP PROPERTIES LTD v GO-BUS TRANSPORT LTD [2015] NZHC 1471

ISAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MANAGH [2013] NZHC 3242

KAKARA ESTATE LIMITED V SAVVY VINEYARDS 3552 LIMITED COA CA178/2012

IKE V NEW ZEALAND COURIERS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-000648

MR GREEN HOME SERVICES FRANCHISE CO LIMITED V WALL HC TIM CIV-2006-0476-000474