MOUNT GREY DOWNS LIMITED v PINOT PROPERTIES LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3094

MOUNT GREY DOWNS LIMITED v PINOT PROPERTIES LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3094

Summary judgment was dismissed because defendants raised arguable defences: credible, uncontradicted evidence that the plaintiff gave a pre-contract estimate which may have been relied on and may give rise to actionable consequences, and arguable non-compliance by plaintiff with the contractual audit provision...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 3094
Parties
Plaintiff: Mount Grey Downs Limited; First Defendant: Pinot Properties Limited; Second Defendant: Stephen Charles Cohen
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Contract/debt Claim With Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Hearing (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Contractual Representations/estimates, Summary Judgment Principles, Audit/auditing Provision, Reliance and Reasonableness, Discovery and Disclosure
Contract Law Civil Procedure Tort (negligent Misstatement) Consumer Protection (fair Trading Act) Pre Contractual Representations/estimates Summary Judgment Principles Audit/auditing Provision Reliance and Reasonableness +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mount Grey Downs Limited

Plaintiff

Pinot Properties Limited

First Defendant

Stephen Charles Cohen

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract/debt Claim With Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Hearing (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a pre-contract oral estimate by plaintiff constituted a binding representation limiting recovery
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff complied with contractual audit provision (provision of detailed time-sheets) so invoices became due
  3. 3 Whether defendants raised an arguable defence sufficient to defeat summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was dismissed because defendants raised arguable defences: credible, uncontradicted evidence that the plaintiff gave a pre-contract estimate which may have been relied on and may give rise to actionable consequences, and arguable non-compliance by plaintiff with the contractual audit provision (failure to provide detailed time-sheets). Plaintiff failed to demonstrate there was no defence to its claim on the material before the Court.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment dismissed
  • Defendants to file and serve statements of defence within 10 working days and comply with duties of initial disclosure by that date