|
All Reasonable Endeavours: In
proceedings involving strike out requests from an arbitrators interim
award and ruling the case discussed interesting issues around the
arbitrators decision that a party had not used all reasonable endeavours
to obtain Overseas Investment Office consent (the actual decision of
whether all reasonable endeavours had been taken was an arbitrators
interim award).
Securities Act Breach: The High
Court held various directors in breach of the Securities Act in
distributing an investment statement / prospectus / advertisement which
contained untrue statements. The directors were given prison sentences.
Gap in D&O Coverage: The Court
ruled that certain directors cannot rely on their D&O insurance policy
to pay the defence of criminal actions filed against them by the new
Financial Markets Authority. Overseas readers will be pleased to note
the decision relied on the provisions of a 75-year old New Zealand
specific statute (the Law Reform Act 1936) and will therefore be of
little, if any, relevance off-shore.
Implied Novation: The Court
rejected an argument of implied novation releasing the original
contracting party merely when the vendor accepted another party to be
the nominee for settlement purposes.
Restraint of Trade:
An injunction application was declined. The Court held a serious issue
to be tried, but "only just", on issue of whether employment with
a competitor amounted to engaging in "any business that supplies products
or services which are the same as or which compete with" [the
business]. However the Court was not satisfied any breach of the
restraint had been shown.
Effect of Nomination: The High
Court held (i) a nominee has the ability to complete a contract in place
of the nominating party; (ii) that nomination may occur at any time;
(iii) the nominee is entitled to the full benefit of the agreement and
can do everything that the purchaser was entitled to do under the
contract.
Separate Corporate Identity: The
Court dismissed a claim for summary judgment. It held the claim
essentially amounted to an invitation to lift the corporate veil and, in
New Zealand, the Courts are traditionally reluctant to lift the
corporate veil, as the doctrine of separate legal identity was
fundamental to company law. There were no compelling factors to justify
the high threshold required to look beyond the party's corporate
identity.
Settlement Agreement:
The High Court upheld the "no sue" clause in a settlement agreement. |