BFMG LIMITED v SPEIRS [2014] NZHC 513

BFMG LIMITED v SPEIRS [2014] NZHC 513

The interlocutory application for specific performance is dismissed because there is a serious question to be tried as to inducement by misrepresentation and the EQC material does not on its face defeat the defendants' account; the balance of convenience favors preserving the status quo pending trial given doubts...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 513
Parties
Plaintiff: BFMG Limited; First Defendant: David John Cameron Speirs; Second Defendant: George Speirs
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Relief (specific Performance) / Interim Hearing / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Misrepresentation, Interim Relief, Balance of Convenience, Contractual Remedies Act 1979 S 7(4)(a)
Contract Property Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Specific Performance Misrepresentation Interim Relief Balance of Convenience +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BFMG Limited

Plaintiff

David John Cameron Speirs

First Defendant

George Speirs

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Interim Relief (specific Performance) / Interim Hearing / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants validly cancelled the agreement by reason of alleged misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether representations about the foundations were made and were essential to induce the contract (s 7(4)(a) CRA)
  3. 3 Whether the EQC letter and statement of claim on their face rule out misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application for specific performance is dismissed because there is a serious question to be tried as to inducement by misrepresentation and the EQC material does not on its face defeat the defendants' account; the balance of convenience favors preserving the status quo pending trial given doubts about enforceability of damages and the risk of irreparable prejudice if transfer were to be unwound.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim specific performance dismissed
  • Costs reserved to substantive trial; Category 2B costs appropriate