QU & v PROPERTY PARTNERS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1032

QU & v PROPERTY PARTNERS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1032

The plaintiffs failed to raise a serious question to be tried because PPL never exercised its option and the marketing/project services agreements were validly terminated before exercise; the plaintiffs derive no greater rights than PPL and any equitable interest they might have had was lost by the lawful...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 1032
Parties
Plaintiff: Leiming Qu; Plaintiff: Wei Zhang; First Defendant: Property Partners Limited; Second Defendant: Dun Zhang
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Property / Equity / Interim Injunction Application (hearing on Application for Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Interim injunction discharged; plaintiffs' interim application dismissed (no serious question to be tried)
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Assignment, Equitable Interest, Interim Injunction, Option to Purchase, Subdivision
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Assignment Equitable Interest Interim Injunction +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leiming Qu

Plaintiff

Wei Zhang

Plaintiff

Property Partners Limited

First Defendant

Dun Zhang

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Property / Equity / Interim Injunction Application (hearing on Application for Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sub-purchasers obtained an equitable interest enforceable against owner
  2. 2 Whether any equitable interest was lost by termination of agreements before option exercise
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs as assignees could be in a stronger position than PPL

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to raise a serious question to be tried because PPL never exercised its option and the marketing/project services agreements were validly terminated before exercise; the plaintiffs derive no greater rights than PPL and any equitable interest they might have had was lost by the lawful termination in light of substantial delays and cost escalations, so the interim injunction must be discharged.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction discharged; plaintiffs' interim application dismissed (no serious question to be tried)

Orders

  • Existing interim injunction discharged
  • Costs awarded to second defendant on a 2B scale together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar