ESPLANADE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED & ANOR V TAMARA SPA LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-001638

ESPLANADE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED & ANOR V TAMARA SPA LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-001638

Refusal of leave to adduce fresh occupancy evidence because the proposed figures were not sufficiently cogent and were reasonably available at trial; accordingly Judge Joyce's factual findings that a misrepresentation was made and that the respondents' reliance was reasonable stand; appeal dismissed.

Citation
openlaw-a1b051dc_35d0_4020_8591_31396af84f0d.pdf
Parties
First Appellant: Esplanade Property Holdings Limited; Second Appellant: Andrew van der Peet; First Respondent: Tamara Spa Limited; Second Respondent: Neelufur Ameen; Third Respondent: Wasim Ahmed
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From District Court / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal Including Application to Adduce Further Evidence
Outcome
Leave to adduce further evidence refused; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Cancellation of Contract, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Reasonable Reliance, Damages
Contract Law Consumer Protection Evidence Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Cancellation of Contract Fresh Evidence on Appeal +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esplanade Property Holdings Limited

First Appellant

Andrew van der Peet

Second Appellant

Tamara Spa Limited

First Respondent

Neelufur Ameen

Second Respondent

Wasim Ahmed

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From District Court / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal Including Application to Adduce Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal (occupancy records)
  2. 2 Whether a 50% occupancy representation was made and was false
  3. 3 Whether respondents reasonably relied on the representation

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of leave to adduce fresh occupancy evidence because the proposed figures were not sufficiently cogent and were reasonably available at trial; accordingly Judge Joyce's factual findings that a misrepresentation was made and that the respondents' reliance was reasonable stand; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to adduce further evidence refused; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to adduce further evidence refused
  • Appeal dismissed