JAMES V ROBB HC CHCH CIV-2009-406-000266

JAMES V ROBB HC CHCH CIV-2009-406-000266

The Court found that the parties (the Robbs and Mr James) shared a common intention at the time of the agreement that the sale include all land they believed they owned (including CT MB1B/517). The written agreement omitted that land and therefore failed to record the common intention. Rectification of the sale agreement was ordered to include CT MB1B/517; Gary Robb held that land on constructive trust for the purchaser and was ordered to transfer it. Delay did not bar relief because Gary was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and had participated in or benefited from the mistaken situation.

Citation
openlaw-2d6f988d_fd1b_47fd_bcb9_d94a796c49ff.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Shaun David James; Second Plaintiff: Blue Cod Investments Limited; First Defendant: James Ivan Robb; First Defendant: Eulalie Rata Robb; Second Defendant: Gary William Robb
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Sale and Purchase of Land; Rectification; Equitable Claim / Final Judgment (11 July 2011)
Outcome
Agreement rectified to include CT MB1B/517; constructive trust declared; transfer ordered to purchaser
Legal Topics
Rectification, Constructive Trust, Mistake, Laches/delay/acquiescence, Non Merger Clause
Contract Property Equity Trusts Statutory Remedies (contractual Mistakes Act 1977) Rectification Constructive Trust Mistake +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun David James

First Plaintiff

Blue Cod Investments Limited

Second Plaintiff

James Ivan Robb

First Defendant

Eulalie Rata Robb

First Defendant

Gary William Robb

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sale and Purchase of Land; Rectification; Equitable Claim / Final Judgment (11 July 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written agreement failed to record the parties' common intention to buy and sell all land owned by the vendors including the 'lost land'
  2. 2 Whether there was an operative unilateral or common mistake under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether delay/acquiescence/laches or bona fide purchaser defenses preclude equitable relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the parties (the Robbs and Mr James) shared a common intention at the time of the agreement that the sale include all land they believed they owned (including CT MB1B/517). The written agreement omitted that land and therefore failed to record the common intention. Rectification of the sale agreement was ordered to include CT MB1B/517; Gary Robb held that land on constructive trust for the purchaser and was ordered to transfer it. Delay did not bar relief because Gary was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and had participated in or benefited from the mistaken situation.

Court Disposition

Agreement rectified to include CT MB1B/517; constructive trust declared; transfer ordered to purchaser

Orders

  • The agreement dated 5 December 2006 is rectified to provide that the land described includes the land comprised in Certificate of Title MB1B/517
  • Declare that Gary William Robb holds the land comprised in Certificate of Title MB1B/517 on constructive trust for the second plaintiff (Blue Cod Investments Limited) and order him to transfer that land to the second plaintiff