New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Warranty breach

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2023

OHL LIMITED v PREMIER PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3211

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3211
Court

High Court

Because the parties had contractually provided that disputed settlement funds be held pending determination of compensation, and because keeping the funds on trust preserves the appellant's ability to recover if the appeal succeeds while the respondent can be compensated by interest for delay, the balance of convenience favoured a stay; accordingly the court granted a stay of execution and ordered the status quo of trust funds preserved pending appeal.
24 Apr 2023

AGGARWAL v DSD HOMES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 918

Citation

[2023] NZHC 918
Court

High Court

DSD breached contractual warranties (cls 14.1 and 23) by being GST registered at settlement; clause 23 made the signatory personally liable for any GST claim denied due to deemed zero rating; the plaintiffs proved loss of $166,956 recoverable from the defendants jointly and severally, with contractual entitlement to interest at 14% from settlement to the hearing and recovery of costs and disbursements.
6 Jul 2021

VIAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v LEONARD & ANOR [2021] NZHC 1675

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1675
Court

High Court

Leave was refused and the summary judgment and strike out applications dismissed because defendants failed to satisfactorily explain delay and, critically, there are disputed material facts on the first, second and fourth causes (pork legs negotiations, missing assets, records/Oppenheimer) and unresolved issues about notice under the SSA and the aggregate $100,000 threshold; those disputes make summary dismissal inappropriate.
4 Dec 2020

KHURANA TRUSTEE LIMITED v CASTLE BACKPACKER K ROAD LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3192

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3192
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to file a statement of defence out of time because the defendant demonstrated an arguable defence on the documents (challenge to whether loan funds were advanced and possible contractual/warranty issues), successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of insolvency on a cash-flow basis (albeit narrowly), the delay was mitigated by the COVID‑19 lockdown and the overall justice favored allowing the defence to be filed; the strike out/stay application was left undecided.
15 Jun 2018

CLOUD HOUSE LTD v BULLETPROOF GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 1450

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1450
Court

High Court

Credible evidence showed Cloud sold its business and likely distributed the $1,000,000 sale proceeds to shareholders and now depends on unsecured shareholder support; given the real risk Cloud would be unable to meet an adverse costs order, and after balancing interests including the existence of a related counterclaim, it was just to order staged security of $60,000 (two tranches of $30,000) payable into solicitors' trust or court, with failure to comply permitting defendants to seek stay or adjournment.
10 May 2012

ENERSAVE PRODUCTS LTD V DWA LTD HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-002658

Citation

openlaw-eb2d21d0_03b4_4331_a217_c581ba558e5c.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the purchaser failed to demonstrate, on the evidence, a reasonably arguable counterclaim of sufficient quantum to reduce the statutory demand below the prescribed threshold. The purchaser's quantification was flawed (failed to account for stock already sold and relied on unsupported turnover assumptions and credibility-sensitive facts) and therefore the statutory demand was not shown to be disputed to the requisite standard.
10 Sept 2008

PAE (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED V MARK BROSNAHAN, MICHAEL RALPH CARTER, WAYNE ALBANY PATTINSON HC WN CIV 2005-485-843

Citation

openlaw-f5e9fde4_2a1b_4a86_978b_8aebd84bf26a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found insufficient evidence of fraudulent pre-contractual manipulation, therefore the entire agreement clause barred inquiry into pre-contractual misrepresentations; negligent misstatement claim failed as it was not fair and reasonable to permit relief given PAE's bargaining position and due diligence opportunities; the contractual warranty that liabilities were disclosed was breached and damages for that breach were awarded (net amount to be calculated taking into account GST offset and interest); the Fair Trading Act claim failed; defendants' counterclaim for $350,000 succeeded be…

New Zealand Case Law

OHL LIMITED v PREMIER PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3211

AGGARWAL v DSD HOMES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 918

VIAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v LEONARD & ANOR [2021] NZHC 1675

KHURANA TRUSTEE LIMITED v CASTLE BACKPACKER K ROAD LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3192

CLOUD HOUSE LTD v BULLETPROOF GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 1450

ENERSAVE PRODUCTS LTD V DWA LTD HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-002658

PAE (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED V MARK BROSNAHAN, MICHAEL RALPH CARTER, WAYNE ALBANY PATTINSON HC WN CIV 2005-485-843