New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wrongful termination

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2018

VISUAL GROUP NZ LTD v BYTECRAFT SYSTEMS PTY LTD [2018] NZHC 1292

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1292
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's vague financial evidence combined with consistent delay and failure to comply with directions gave rise to a credible inference it may be unable to pay a costs award; in the exercise of the court's discretion security for costs of NZD 15,000 was required to cover costs up to and including discovery, to be paid by 22 June 2018 or the proceeding will be stayed; defendant awarded costs on a 2B basis plus 15% uplift and disbursements.
1 Jul 2010

ENVIROSAND MERCER LTD V PERRY RESOURCES (2008) LTD HC HAM CIV 2000-419-000944

Citation

openlaw-ad5c7089_fa11_4d86_889a_5d5f5d601d14.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held clause 12.2.1(b) permits termination where an obligation is not remedied within 30 days irrespective of materiality; no general good faith limitation or implied term could be read into the express termination regime; no estoppel or waiver was established; consequently the first and second causes of action disclose no reasonably arguable cause and must be struck out; parts of the third cause seeking payment of the second‑year minimum beyond $77,632.80 were unsustainable because payment obligations arose post‑termination and price recovery is barred where the contract is terminat…
16 Sept 2009

SEETELLIGENCE MALTA LIMITED AND ANOR V COMPUDIGM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC WN CIV-2007-485-002773

Citation

openlaw-1fe9c687_3363_4164_a7c2_dd46165b49fa.pdf
Court

High Court

On the unopposed affidavit evidence the plaintiffs did not materially breach the Distribution Agreement; any alleged breach was at most technical and was remedied within the contractual cure period; accordingly the defendant's termination was invalid.
3 Apr 2009

SHARPLES LOGGING LIMITED V WEYERHAUSER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC NEL CIV 2006-442-000260

Citation

openlaw-bf0f0b05_1bb5_449a_b34f_f43419e0ec67.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 7(a)(i) as drafted was too uncertain and non‑essential to permit immediate termination for breach of the Customer's Health and Safety Management system; no agreed Health and Safety Management Plan existed so clause 7(a)(ii) was inapplicable; termination was therefore invalid and Sharples entitled to damages for wrongful termination.
1 Aug 2008

METER MINDERS LIMITED V ARC INNOVATIONS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-002873

Citation

openlaw-f96c4ffa_2963_4899_8045_ef636eabdbfd.pdf
Court

High Court

Arc was not entitled to summarily terminate; clause 17 required notice and an opportunity to remedy for material breaches that were capable of remedy, the unlicensed status was remediable and Meter Minders was honest about the lapse, therefore Arc wrongfully repudiated the contract and is liable in damages.
7 Nov 2007

B HOLMES V TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2007-404-1564

Citation

openlaw-79974429_e1b8_4206_8ec2_2de5b46d4642.pdf
Court

High Court

All pleaded causes of action accrued no later than October/December 2000 and are barred by the six‑year limitation period; the plaintiff failed to establish he was under a disability when the causes of action accrued for the purposes of s24; accordingly defendant established a complete limitation defence and summary judgment under r136(2) was granted to the defendant.
16 Aug 2006

HIEBER AS TRUSTEE AND ANOR V COTTON HC AK CIV 2005-404-7393

Citation

openlaw-1adc2a33_f6f1_4616_96e7_9f198b91b82d.pdf
Court

High Court

The management agreement, read in its context, limited the 6% entitlement to periodic rental collections; it did not extend to a commission on sale proceeds or a one-off deposit. No pleaded facts or admissible factual matrix supported extending the contract. Therefore the claim for $40,500 could not succeed and was struck out, while the wrongful termination claim remained amendable and not struck out.
14 Aug 2006

CANDILIOTIS V TRANSPACIFIC INDUST. HC WN CIV 2006-485-1775

Citation

openlaw-491d655f_d599_4de3_8b45_02527b339a77.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for a mandatory interim injunction was declined because, although there is a serious question to be tried on the construction of clause 11.1, the balance of convenience favors the defendant: the defendant has reallocated work, has lost trust in the plaintiff due to the undisclosed side work and lack of candour, and damages are an adequate and quantifiable remedy; therefore mandatory interim relief is inappropriate.