New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undisclosed agency

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2021

NEPTUNE BIO-INNOVATIONS PTY LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND EZ-HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1280

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1280
Court

High Court

Because the alleged agency was not disclosed to the plaintiff and the facts demonstrated the defendant acted and was dealt with as the contracting party (purchase order in its name, invoice addressed to it, part payment by it, communications with its representative), there was no arguable defence; summary judgment was therefore appropriate and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum including statutory interest and costs.
20 Aug 2013

STOKES v INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2113

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2113
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's directions for a complete rehearing were set aside insofar as they permitted relitigation of the capacity issue because the Court of Appeal had upheld the finding that Mrs Heenan signed the agreement in her capacity as trustee and had remitted only the specified issues (co-trustee consent and entitlement to indemnity/equitable lien); the resumed hearing must be confined to those remitted issues and further directions are to be given following a joint memorandum from counsel.
25 Jul 2012

STOKES FAMILY TRUST V INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE CO LTD HC AK CIV-2011-404-1317

Citation

openlaw-f44f55b2_b27a_471d_bba4_1b7e704ad946.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts the judge found that Mrs Colebrook intended to act on behalf of the RM Colebrook Family Trust when she entered the August 2007 sale and purchase agreement and, on the history and pattern of the trust's dealings, had inferred actual authority from the trust; therefore she was an undisclosed agent of the trust, the trustees were personally liable for failure to settle, and the trustee has a right of indemnity giving rise to an equitable lien over trust property which the plaintiffs may subrogate to enforce.
30 Apr 2008

G F PARSONAGE AND T J GOULDING V J C LAIDLAW AND C A LAIDLAW HC AK CIV 2007-404-004484

Citation

openlaw-556582f0_a11c_4640_90bc_5de910e94967.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the phrase "and or nominee" in the sale agreement sufficiently designates the trust as beneficiary under s4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 (following the reasoning in Rattrays and Ballance), therefore the trustees as nominees had standing to enforce the vendor warranty in clause 6.2(5); defendants had no arguable defence to that contractual cause of action and summary judgment was appropriate for proven repair costs and the inspection fee, while agency, novation and other causes were unsuitable for summary determination.

New Zealand Case Law

NEPTUNE BIO-INNOVATIONS PTY LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND EZ-HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1280

STOKES v INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2113

STOKES FAMILY TRUST V INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE CO LTD HC AK CIV-2011-404-1317

G F PARSONAGE AND T J GOULDING V J C LAIDLAW AND C A LAIDLAW HC AK CIV 2007-404-004484