BROWNSONS HOLDINGS (1999) LIMITED AND ORS V THE PLAZA PAKURANGA LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-1113

BROWNSONS HOLDINGS (1999) LIMITED AND ORS V THE PLAZA PAKURANGA LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-1113

The phrase in question was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence of the factual background and negotiations is admissible to the extent it establishes mutually known facts and assists the objective interpretation; accordingly most of the plaintiff's factual evidence was allowed except for specific passages that amounted to inadmissible subjective intentions or irrelevant pre-contract negotiations, and leave to file amended defendant briefs was granted.

Citation
openlaw-bc60ead7_b68a_45e7_bd24_eed7d6267558.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: BROWNSONS HOLDINGS (1999) LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: BROWNSONS JEWELLERS ONEHUNGA (1998) LIMITED; Third Plaintiff: MUMBAI MASALA LIMITED; First Defendant: THE PLAZA PAKURANGA LIMITED; Second Defendant: WESTFIELD (NZ) LIMITED; Third Defendant: WESTCITY SHOPPING CENTRE LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil: Contract Dispute (interpretation and Alleged Misrepresentation) / Interlocutory Admissibility Hearing (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interlocutory ruling: permitted most of plaintiff's evidence to be led subject to specific exclusions; granted leave to defendants to file amended briefs
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Extrinsic Evidence, Pre Contract Negotiations, Admissibility of Witness Evidence, Costs Consequences
Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Contract Interpretation Extrinsic Evidence Pre Contract Negotiations Admissibility of Witness Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BROWNSONS HOLDINGS (1999) LIMITED

First Plaintiff

BROWNSONS JEWELLERS ONEHUNGA (1998) LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

MUMBAI MASALA LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

THE PLAZA PAKURANGA LIMITED

First Defendant

WESTFIELD (NZ) LIMITED

Second Defendant

WESTCITY SHOPPING CENTRE LIMITED

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Contract Dispute (interpretation and Alleged Misrepresentation) / Interlocutory Admissibility Hearing (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of phrase 'future redeveloped or developed' (whether 'developed' is future or existing)
  2. 2 Admissibility of pre-contract negotiations and extrinsic evidence to construe contract
  3. 3 Admissibility of evidence of subjective intentions of witness

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase in question was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence of the factual background and negotiations is admissible to the extent it establishes mutually known facts and assists the objective interpretation; accordingly most of the plaintiff's factual evidence was allowed except for specific passages that amounted to inadmissible subjective intentions or irrelevant pre-contract negotiations, and leave to file amended defendant briefs was granted.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory ruling: permitted most of plaintiff's evidence to be led subject to specific exclusions; granted leave to defendants to file amended briefs

Orders

  • Paragraphs 37-40 of Mr Raniga's brief excluded as irrelevant and inadmissible
  • Paragraphs 42-48 of Mr Raniga's brief excluded as inadmissible pre-contract negotiations