STRACK & ORS v GREY [2018] NZHC 1651

STRACK & ORS v GREY [2018] NZHC 1651

The defendant was in breach of contract when he purported to cancel; however the plaintiffs could not prove actual loss because the likelihood of the purchaser obtaining finance was negligible, so only nominal damages ($100) were awarded. In the exercise of discretion, although the Calderbank offer had some relevance, costs were ordered to lie where they fall (no costs awarded to either party).

Citation
[2018] NZHC 1651
Parties
Plaintiff Vendor: Matthew Francis Strack; Plaintiff Vendor: Tracey Leigh Strack; Plaintiff Vendor (trustee): WMC Trustee Limited; Defendant Purchaser: David Harvey Grey
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Contract Sale and Purchase of Real Estate (contractual Remedies Act 1979) / Costs Application Post Trial Judgment (judgment on Liability and Damages Delivered; Costs Reserved; Final Costs Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs for nominal damages of $100.00; defendant found in breach of contract; no costs awarded to either party (costs lie where they fall).
Legal Topics
Repudiation, Cancellation, Nominal Damages, Calderbank Offers, Onus of Proof for Finance Condition, Building Report Evidence, Costs Discretion
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Repudiation Cancellation Nominal Damages Calderbank Offers +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Francis Strack

Plaintiff Vendor

Tracey Leigh Strack

Plaintiff Vendor

WMC Trustee Limited

Plaintiff Vendor (trustee)

David Harvey Grey

Defendant Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Contract Sale and Purchase of Real Estate (contractual Remedies Act 1979) / Costs Application Post Trial Judgment (judgment on Liability and Damages Delivered; Costs Reserved; Final Costs Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchaser validly cancelled the agreement under the building-report clause
  2. 2 Whether purchaser's purported cancellation amounted to repudiatory breach by purchaser
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs proved actual loss arising from breach and entitlement to more than nominal damages

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was in breach of contract when he purported to cancel; however the plaintiffs could not prove actual loss because the likelihood of the purchaser obtaining finance was negligible, so only nominal damages ($100) were awarded. In the exercise of discretion, although the Calderbank offer had some relevance, costs were ordered to lie where they fall (no costs awarded to either party).

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs for nominal damages of $100.00; defendant found in breach of contract; no costs awarded to either party (costs lie where they fall).

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs for nominal damages of $100.00
  • No party awarded costs; costs lie where they fall