18.06.2018

Honey Bees Preschool Ltd v 127 Hobson Street Ltd [2018] NZHC 32

The High Court recently clarified the New Zealand position on when the penalties doctrine might be engaged.

Facts

Honey Bees Preschool Ltd (Honey Bees) leased premises from 127 Hobson Street Ltd for the purposes of operating a childcare centre. The lease required the landlord to install a second lift on the premises and, if this was not operational by 31 July 2016 (some 31 months after the Deed of Lease was executed), to indemnify Honey Bees against all obligations it may incur in relation to the premises (including rent and other expenses). This indemnity would have the effect of allowing Honey Bees to occupy the premises for approximately two years rent-free.

Scope of penalty doctrine

The Court first considered the competing approaches to the scope of the penalty doctrine in Australia and the UK. The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the penalties doctrine is only engaged where breach of a primary obligation (eg failure to provide goods as required by contract) results in the triggering of a secondary obligation (eg payment of a fee or damages).[1] The High Court of Australia did not consider a breach of contract as required for the penalty doctrine to be triggered and that a primary obligation could be construed as a penalty.[2]

Whata J preferred the approach of the UK and held that the penalties doctrine extended only to secondary obligations.  While the indemnity provision in the lease resembled a conditional primary obligation, in substance it was akin to a secondary obligation and therefore was within the scope of the penalties doctrine.

When is a clause a penalty clause?

The High Court then considered when a secondary obligation would amount to a penalty. Prior to Honey Bees, New Zealand followed the longstanding threshold tests outlined by Lord Dunedin in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd.[3]  Lord Dunedin said that a clause will be an unenforceable penalty if it is ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ and not a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ arising from a breach.

Recent case law from the United Kingdom and Australia has departed from the concept of ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ – instead adopting a wider legitimate interest test. Under this test, a clause is a penalty where the detriment to the contract breaker was “out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation”.[4]

In applying In applying the ‘legitimate interest’ test, Whata J considered the following factors were relevant in concluding that the obligation to indemnify was not a penalty:

  1. Honey Bees’ concerns regarding non-performance were legitimate.
  2. The defendant had 31 months to install the lift without triggering the indemnity provisions.
  3. The defendant should have known the importance of the lift to the plaintiff’s business.
  4. The landlord’s non-performance would affect the plaintiff’s ability to operate a successful childcare facility at capacity.
  5. Both parties were commercially astute.  The defendant was an experienced property developer who managed 12 commercial properties.  Any vulnerability it possessed was self-imposed through its reliance on internal expertise rather than seeking legal advice from its solicitor.
  6. The purpose of the indemnity clause was to ensure performance, not to punish the defendant.

Significance of decision

The High Court has clarified the approach to penalty clauses in New Zealand. In adopting the “legitimate interest” test the Court has arguably narrowed the circumstances in which clauses will be unenforceable penalties, albeit this is still to be affirmed by appellant higher court.

[1] Cavendish Square Holding BC v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67.

[2] Andrews v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30, (2012) 247 CLR 205; Paciocco v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] HCA 28, (2016) 258 CLR 525.

[3] Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 (HL).

[4] Andrews above n 2 at [32].

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.