STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V SHANE ARTHUR PAGET HC AK CIV-2009-404-664

STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V SHANE ARTHUR PAGET HC AK CIV-2009-404-664

There was no genuinely arguable defence: the sale and purchase agreement expressly bound the defendant to settle, the alleged collateral underwrite letters did not give rise to an implied term obliging the vendor to use best endeavours to resell before calling on the purchaser, and the arbitration clause did not preclude summary judgment; accordingly specific performance was ordered and summary judgment granted.

Citation
openlaw-eb1fdded_a002_44f5_b2d5_ea66bfae58e5.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff Vendor: Station Properties Limited (in receivership); Defendant Purchaser: Shane Arthur Paget
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute Specific Performance (sale and Purchase of Land) / Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff; order for specific performance and costs awarded
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Summary Judgment, Implied Terms, Settlement Notice, Unit Titles
Contract Law Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Arbitration Law Specific Performance Sale and Purchase Agreement Summary Judgment +3 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Station Properties Limited (in receivership)

Plaintiff Vendor

Shane Arthur Paget

Defendant Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute Specific Performance (sale and Purchase of Land) / Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has any genuinely arguable defence to summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether collateral underwrite arrangements give rise to an implied term obliging the vendor to use best endeavours to resell before calling on purchaser to settle
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration clause prevents the Court granting summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

There was no genuinely arguable defence: the sale and purchase agreement expressly bound the defendant to settle, the alleged collateral underwrite letters did not give rise to an implied term obliging the vendor to use best endeavours to resell before calling on the purchaser, and the arbitration clause did not preclude summary judgment; accordingly specific performance was ordered and summary judgment granted.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff; order for specific performance and costs awarded

Orders

  • Order for specific performance to be complied with by 22 January 2010 requiring the defendant to complete settlement by paying the balance of the purchase price of $1,279,025.56 together with interest at 15% per annum from 9 October 2008 (calculated as $525.62 per day)
  • Order for costs on the application for summary judgment on a 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar