Search

This article considers the historical development of the summary judgment procedure, both in England and in New Zealand, for the purpose of highlighting the commercial imperatives underlying the procedure's genesis. It goes on to discuss the modern role played by summary judgment, by reference to two recent decisions that illustrate the tensions associated with expanding the procedure's scope into previously unheralded areas of the law. It concludes that commercial parties should rigorously consider whether their dispute is capable of being determined by summary judgment, but that this should not be understood as lessening the standard required to be met before judgment will be granted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No set-off (NSO) clauses, widely used in a variety of contracts and transactions, typically state that payment must be made without deduction, set-off or counterclaim. This article examines the relationship of NSO clauses with stay of execution and the summary judgment procedure under the court rules. Although comparison is made with English law, the focus is on New Zealand. The main arguments are as follows: it is the law and good law that NSO clauses do not have the effect of barring the court from exercising the discretion to stay execution of judgment. However, such clauses should have an impact on the discretion, and certain principles governing the exercise of the discretion can be restated in such a way as to reflect the impact. To enter summary judgment on the ground of an NSO clause and to do so purely on the 'no arguable defence' ground in the court rules are two different things. In particular, while the court has the discretion to decline summary judgment even though the defendant has no arguable defence under the court rules, it should not have that discretion when an NSO clause is resorted to. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the res judicata legal doctrine in relation to the New Zealand Court of Appeal's ruling in the case New Zealand Home Bonds Ltd. v. Singh which deals with a deposit bond for the purchase of several apartments. A summary judgment motion is addressed, along with the 2009 case Yiin v. New Zealand Home Bonds Ltd. Other topics include a breach of contract claim, the estoppel legal principle, and the rights of purchasers.

The article focuses on the New Zealand court case Planet Kids Ltd. v. Auckland Council, which dealt with the doctrine of frustration under New Zealand contract law. Topics include claims for summary judgment, the termination of leasehold interest, and breach of contract. Information is provided on supervening events.