BAZUKA ENTERPRISES LTD V ALASKA PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-675

BAZUKA ENTERPRISES LTD V ALASKA PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-675

Defendant's allegations were either unrelated to the contract sued on or were unsupported and lacked necessary particularity; plaintiff provided affirmative affidavits including an independent valuer that established the vessel's value at the relevant time; therefore there was no reasonably arguable defence and summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff in the sum accepted by the court.

Citation
openlaw-1238c254_2252_48fb_8cb7_d7f9277439ac.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Bazuka Enterprises Ltd; First Defendant: Alaska Properties Limited; Second Defendant: Alaska Trustee Company Limited; Third Defendant: Brett Ronald Larsen
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/debt Claim / Application for Summary Judgment (summary Hearing)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Misrepresentation, Valuation, Fair Trading Act, Contractual Remedies Act, Costs
Contract Civil Procedure Commercial Law Consumer Protection Summary Judgment Misrepresentation Valuation Fair Trading Act +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bazuka Enterprises Ltd

Plaintiff

Alaska Properties Limited

First Defendant

Alaska Trustee Company Limited

Second Defendant

Brett Ronald Larsen

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/debt Claim / Application for Summary Judgment (summary Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third defendant has any reasonably arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim
  2. 2 Whether alleged misrepresentations (value and cost of construction) were made and induced the purchase
  3. 3 Whether the later sale price of the vessel undermines the sale price at the time of contract

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant's allegations were either unrelated to the contract sued on or were unsupported and lacked necessary particularity; plaintiff provided affirmative affidavits including an independent valuer that established the vessel's value at the relevant time; therefore there was no reasonably arguable defence and summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff in the sum accepted by the court.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $556,423.50
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs on a 2B basis