UTOPIA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V CHUNG HC HAM CIV-2009-470-1081

UTOPIA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V CHUNG HC HAM CIV-2009-470-1081

The Court ordered specific performance for Lot 29 because the remedy was appropriate; for Lots 52 and 53, which were resold after cancellation, the plaintiff was entitled to damages equal to the loss on resale plus contractual interest, reasonable marketing costs and modest maintenance; the claim for return of the deposit was an acknowledged error; costs and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
openlaw-f636b46a_6137_4f5f_85ce_e3b16bbb73b2.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Utopia Developments Limited; Defendant: Sei Hyung Chung
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/property (specific Performance and Damages) / Judgment (oral)
Outcome
Order for specific performance (Lot 29); judgment for plaintiff and damages awarded for Lots 52 and 53; costs and disbursements awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Damages for Breach of Contract, Resale Loss Calculation, Contractual Interest, Costs and Disbursements
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Equity (specific Performance) Specific Performance Damages for Breach of Contract Resale Loss Calculation Contractual Interest +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Utopia Developments Limited

Plaintiff

Sei Hyung Chung

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/property (specific Performance and Damages) / Judgment (oral)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific performance should be ordered for Lot 29
  2. 2 Whether damages are recoverable for Lots 52 and 53 following resale
  3. 3 Proper basis for calculating damages including loss on resale, contractual interest, marketing and maintenance costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered specific performance for Lot 29 because the remedy was appropriate; for Lots 52 and 53, which were resold after cancellation, the plaintiff was entitled to damages equal to the loss on resale plus contractual interest, reasonable marketing costs and modest maintenance; the claim for return of the deposit was an acknowledged error; costs and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Order for specific performance (Lot 29); judgment for plaintiff and damages awarded for Lots 52 and 53; costs and disbursements awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Order that defendant specifically perform the agreement to purchase Lot 29, Deposited Plan 418386 (CT 470555)
  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of 110196.04