Insights & Articles

In business, contracts are the backbone of agreements, ensuring clarity and accountability. But what happens when a contract isn't written down? The case of Kingsbeer Transport Ltd v Martin Brower New Zealand sheds light on this question, revealing important insights for business owners.

This article explores a legal case heard by the New Zealand Court of Appeal, specifically regarding a dispute involving the supply of a building cladding product. The case involved two building owners who initiated legal proceedings against the German-based manufacturer and New Zealand-based distributors. The building owners alleged that the product was faulty and posed risks to their buildings, leading to potential loss and expense.

In an age where time is of the essence and personal schedules are tightly packed, the reliability of transportation services is paramount. Late departures by trains, buses, flights, and other means of transportation have become a common concern for consumers around the world. The rights of consumers when faced with tardy departures are not to be taken lightly.

Woolley v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd: The Exercise of Contractual Discretion‍On 29 June 2023, the New Zealand Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the case of Woolley v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2023] NZCA 266. In its judgment, the Court considered the approach to the exercise of contractual discretion in New Zealand, including the test adopted by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661. A summary of the key facts of the matter and important points in the Court's decision follow.

As well as potential changes to the Holidays Act, see last year's article Changes on the way for the Holidays Act, there are potential changes on the horizon in relation to sexual harassment claims and restraint of trade provisions. We have outlined the details below.

The countdown to Christmas is on. Many workplaces in New Zealand are planning their annual closedown over the Christmas period. This will likely mean that many employers are attempting to navigate the complexities of the Holidays Act 2003. We have set out to answer some frequently asked questions during this time of the year.

Assignment of contracts is a fairly common practice in the business world. In an assignment, the person assigning the contract - the "Assignor" - assigns the benefits of the contract the Assignor holds to a new person (the "Assignee") who takes the benefit of that contract "the Assignee". Some contracts may expressly prohibit assignment and some contracts provide that a contract may not be assigned without the consent of the other party. If a contract has no provision relating to assignment, then the general rule is that it may be assigned, with a few exceptions.

A recent decision in the High Court of New Zealand has provided the first instance of the Courts using the Fair Trading Act 1986 ("FTA") to declare specific terms in a standard form consumer contract unfair, and therefore unenforceable. The decision in Commerce Commission v Home Direct Limited1 was made pursuant to sections in the FTA which were introduced in 2013 and give the Commerce Commission power to apply to the District Court or High Court for a declaration that a term in a standard form consumer contract is unfair.

The Privacy Act 2020 ("new Act") came into force in 2020, replacing the Privacy Act 1993. The purpose of the new Act was to overhaul New Zealand's existing privacy of personal information regulatory framework and bring it into line with internationally recognised privacy obligations and standards. Section 22 of the new Act sets out 13 information privacy principles ("Privacy Principles"). In this article, we focus on new developments in relation to Privacy Principle 1 ("PP1"), which addresses the purpose of collection of personal information.