JADE RESIDENTIAL LTD v PAUL [2019] NZCA 466
Leave to appeal was granted because there are arguable questions of law as to whether cl 27 of the contract precluded or delayed other contractual rights including cancellation and whether Jade's suspension of work amounted to repudiation justifying cancellation, warranting appellate determination.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZCA 466
- Parties
- Applicant: Jade Residential Ltd; Respondent: Murray Paul; Respondent: Maree Paul
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted to Bring Second Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on specified questions of law
- Legal Topics
- Repudiation, Cancellation, Dispute Resolution Clause Interpretation, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jade Residential Ltd
Applicant
Murray Paul
Respondent
Maree Paul
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted to Bring Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether dispute resolution clause cl 27 barred or delayed other contractual rights including cancellation
- 2 Whether Jade's suspension of work and failure to return amounted to repudiation permitting cancellation
- 3 Whether Jade breached the contract by suspending work on 8 April 2016
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because there are arguable questions of law as to whether cl 27 of the contract precluded or delayed other contractual rights including cancellation and whether Jade's suspension of work amounted to repudiation justifying cancellation, warranting appellate determination.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on specified questions of law
Orders
- Leave to bring a second appeal granted on the questions of law specified in the judgment
- Court requests submissions on whether Jade breached the contract by suspending work on 8 April 2016
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JADE RESIDENTIAL LTD v PAUL [2019] NZCA 466 [1 October 2019]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA344/2019[2019] NZCA 466BETWEEN JADE RESIDENTIAL LIMITEDApplicantAND MURRAY PAUL AND MAREE PAULRespondentsCourt: Clifford and Collins JJCounsel: M B Lawson for ApplicantK A Lomas for RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)1 October 2019 at 11 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is granted on the following questions of law:(a) Did the High Court err in finding that the dispute resolution clause,cl 27, did not "purport to bar anything other than the issue of courtor arbitral proceedings" and did not bar or delay "the other rightsof the parties under the contract", including a right to cancel?(b) Did the High Court err in holding that the Pauls were entitled to,and did validly, cancel the contract because Jade's suspension of,and failure to return to, work on the contract site constituted arepudiation of the contract?____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Clifford J)[1] The applicant, Jade Residential Ltd, is granted leave to bring a second appealon the following questions of law:(a) Did the High Court err in finding that the dispute resolution clause,cl 27, did not "purport to bar anything other than the issue of court orarbitral proceedings" and did not bar or delay "the other rights of theparties under the contract", including a right to cancel?1(b) Did the High Court err in holding that the Pauls were entitled to,and did validly, cancel the contract because Jade's suspension of, andfailure to return to, work on the contract site constituted a repudiationof the contract?[2] The Court requests submissions on a related issue, not expressly discussed ineither of the judgments below: namely whether Jade breached its contract withthe Pauls by suspending work on 8 April 2016.[3] Costs on the application are reserved pending determination of the substantiveappeal.Solicitors:Lawson Robinson, Napier for ApplicantBraun Bond & Lomas, Hamilton for Respondents1 Paul v Jade Residential Ltd [2019] NZHC 304 at [54]–[56].