New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Time-bar clause

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2013

H & H CONTRACTORS LTD v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS LTD & Or [2013] NZHC 2225

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2225
Court

High Court

Clause 45 required H & H to serve a prescribed notice within 15 working days from when it was reasonably aware of the matter (triggered by LW's 28 January 2009 email); H & H failed to comply and did not plead or support estoppel or fraud adequately; clause 45 therefore barred H & H's contractual claims and its FTA claim; all claims against Leighton Works were struck out.
19 Nov 2012

H & H CONTRACTORS LIMITED V LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY. LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-4637

Citation

openlaw-800f9a8d_4b82_4949_a145_3d7d5b54cdde.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 45's 15 working day requirement began to run on 28 January 2009 when defendants' email made clear plaintiff would not be recalled; the plaintiff did not serve a prescribed notice within 15 working days and accordingly the claims grounded in contract (including wrongful repudiation and any account for profits remedy tied to the contract) are time-barred and struck out. The court lacks power to disregard or extend the contractual time-bar. The Fair Trading Act claim is not caught by cl 45 and may proceed. Limited further discovery ordered for specified financial documents.