CAYENNE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V OH HC AK CIV-2012-404-001369

CAYENNE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V OH HC AK CIV-2012-404-001369

An inspection order under r 9.34 was granted because inspection was necessary to enable the plaintiff to determine and quantify alternative remedies (specific performance or damages) and to calculate quantum of damages; the order was not unduly intrusive and it is desirable to determine all issues at one hearing where possible.

Citation
openlaw-350c8406_5fb3_4ba2_a436_58dac063ce3f.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Cayenne Developments Limited; Defendant: Chang Eon Oh
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (sale and Purchase of Land) / Interlocutory Inspection Application (pre‑trial)
Outcome
Inspection order granted under High Court Rule 9.34 with specified limits and conditions.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Inspection Order, Due Diligence, High Court Rule 9.34, Election of Remedies, Assessment of Damages
Contract Property Civil Procedure Equity Remedies Specific Performance Inspection Order Due Diligence +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cayenne Developments Limited

Plaintiff

Chang Eon Oh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (sale and Purchase of Land) / Interlocutory Inspection Application (pre‑trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order inspection of the property under High Court Rule 9.34
  2. 2 Whether inspection is necessary to enable the plaintiff to elect between specific performance and damages and to calculate quantum of loss of profit
  3. 3 Whether an inspection would be unduly intrusive given the defendant's denial of a contract

Ratio Decidendi

An inspection order under r 9.34 was granted because inspection was necessary to enable the plaintiff to determine and quantify alternative remedies (specific performance or damages) and to calculate quantum of damages; the order was not unduly intrusive and it is desirable to determine all issues at one hearing where possible.

Court Disposition

Inspection order granted under High Court Rule 9.34 with specified limits and conditions.

Orders

  • Plaintiff, its consultants and advisors are permitted to enter the property at 92A Rukutai Street, Orakei, Auckland, including buildings, during normal working hours (8:00 am–5:00 pm weekdays) solely to examine the property and building to ascertain the state of the structure, conduct non‑invasive moisture...
  • Inspection is limited to up to three hours on three separate days within a period of 18 working days from the minute dated 14 March 2013.