HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED v 127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED [2018] NZHC 629

HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED v 127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED [2018] NZHC 629

The court ordered specific performance of clause 2 of the collateral deed only to the date of judgment because equitable relief from forfeiture could not be fairly determined given procedural and evidential lacunae; plaintiffs succeeded on their primary claim and are entitled to costs on a 2B basis without a 3C uplift, with costs relating to unresolved equitable relief left where they fall.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 629
Parties
First Plaintiff: HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: JASON JAMES; First Defendant: 127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED; Second Defendant: SUNIL GOVIND PARBHU ALSO KNOWN AS DENNIS PARBHU
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Specific Performance and Equitable Relief / Judgment (no 2) Final
Outcome
Final order: specific performance of clause 2 of the collateral deed to the date of this judgment; costs to plaintiffs on a 2B basis with disbursements up to and including 21 March 2018; costs relating to equitable relief to lie where they fall; registrar to fix quantum if necessary.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Equitable Relief From Forfeiture, Indemnity, Costs, Calderbank Offers
Contract Equity Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Equitable Relief From Forfeiture Indemnity Costs +1 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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED

First Plaintiff

JASON JAMES

Second Plaintiff

127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED

First Defendant

SUNIL GOVIND PARBHU ALSO KNOWN AS DENNIS PARBHU

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Specific Performance and Equitable Relief / Judgment (no 2) Final

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific performance of clause 2 of the collateral deed should be ordered and to what date
  2. 2 Whether equitable relief from forfeiture was available or should be granted after installation of the second lift
  3. 3 Whether the indemnity was lawful and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered specific performance of clause 2 of the collateral deed only to the date of judgment because equitable relief from forfeiture could not be fairly determined given procedural and evidential lacunae; plaintiffs succeeded on their primary claim and are entitled to costs on a 2B basis without a 3C uplift, with costs relating to unresolved equitable relief left where they fall.

Court Disposition

Final order: specific performance of clause 2 of the collateral deed to the date of this judgment; costs to plaintiffs on a 2B basis with disbursements up to and including 21 March 2018; costs relating to equitable relief to lie where they fall; registrar to fix quantum if necessary.

Orders

  • Specific performance of clause 2 of the collateral deed to the date of this judgment (10 April 2018)
  • Costs awarded to plaintiffs on a 2B basis together with disbursements up to and including attendance before the Court on 21 March 2018