New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unfair contract terms

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2021

COMMERCE COMMISSION v ACE MARKETING LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1785

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1785
Court

High Court

Ace was a lender and its customers were borrowers; the Delayed Delivery Provisions were obscured in fine print, inconsistently cross-referenced and not transparently presented or explained, breaching s9C(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) CCCFA. The Delayed Delivery Provisions produced a significant imbalance in rights and obligations, were not reasonably necessary to protect Ace's legitimate interests, and would cause consumer detriment, so they are unfair under s46L FTA. Declarations and an injunction were therefore appropriate.
6 Dec 2021

COMMERCE COMMISSION v ACE MARKETING LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3312

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3312
Court

High Court

The Court held that ACE's contractual delivery provisions and Delayed Delivery Schedule breached the CCCFA (s9C(1) via ss9C(2)(b) and 9C(3)(b)(ii) and (iii)) and that the Delayed Delivery Provisions in the standard form contract were unfair under s46L(1) of the FTA because they caused significant imbalance, were not reasonably necessary to protect ACE's legitimate interests and would cause detriment; accordingly the Court issued declarations of breach, restrained ACE from providing credit under the affected contracts unless and until the contract was amended to comply with the relevant CCCFA…
12 Nov 2019

COMMERCE COMMISSION v HOME DIRECT LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2943

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 904
Court

High Court

The Court declared that the No Refunds term and the 12-month Expiry term in Home Direct's voucher entitlement scheme, when operating together and viewed in the context of the contract as a whole and their lack of transparency, are unfair under s46L(1) FTA because they cause a significant imbalance in rights and obligations, are not reasonably necessary to protect Home Direct's legitimate interests, and would cause detriment if applied, enforced or relied on; accordingly declarations and prohibitions under s26A FTA were made.
4 Jun 2019

JCCL GLOBAL PTY LIMITED v FOUNDRY INNOVATIONS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1270

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1270
Court

High Court

Plaintiff established the debt, default and non‑payment and negated the defendant's asserted defences: the loan was for business purposes (not a consumer contract), was not a standard form contract, the contracted interest rate was commercially justified and not unfair or unconscionable, statutory and equitable unconscionability were not proved, and the interest provision was not a penalty; accordingly there was no arguable defence and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff against Domecq for principal plus contractual interest and costs as ordered.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMERCE COMMISSION v ACE MARKETING LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1785

COMMERCE COMMISSION v ACE MARKETING LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3312

COMMERCE COMMISSION v HOME DIRECT LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2943

JCCL GLOBAL PTY LIMITED v FOUNDRY INNOVATIONS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1270