4 Dec 2020
Summary judgment was rightly refused because the affidavits and documentary record disclosed reasonably arguable factual disputes — including credible evidence that could support a finding of material misrepresentation and that the respondent's conduct could amount to a communicated cancellation — matters requiring discovery and cross-examination and therefore not suitable for disposal on summary judgment.
27 Mar 2015
Summary judgment was dismissed because material facts relevant to whether the plaintiff was a permanent New Zealand resident at the relevant times and other central factual disputes meant the defendant had tenable defences; issues of affirmation and alleged representations required full factual inquiry and direct evidence, so plaintiff failed to show there was no tenable defence.
9 Aug 2010
The applicant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of a substantial dispute or a valid counterclaim/set off; the lease expressly excluded set off and was affirmed by the applicant's conduct after knowledge of the issue; respondents validly gave s245 notice and re‑entered premises effective 31 March 2010; therefore the statutory demand was valid and the application to set it aside was dismissed.
22 Jul 2010
The High Court held the District Court erred in entering summary judgment because the defences of frustration and of an implied term were arguable on the evidence (notably Council prohibition versus prior certificate/consent and clause 15 obligations), so summary disposal was inappropriate; the matter must proceed to a defended hearing.
5 May 2009
The uncontested expert evidence and acceptance by Horizons Regional Council established the site was remediated before settlement, defendants had no valid defence and could not cancel the Agreement (and had affirmed it); the second defendant's guarantee is valid and trustees are personally liable, therefore summary judgment for specific performance and costs was granted to the plaintiff.
20 Jun 2008
The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed because the material was not fresh (it could with reasonable diligence have been produced in the District Court), no special reasons justified late admission, and the evidence would not be cogent or determinative; additionally the applicant affirmed the contract by retaining and using the equipment and continuing payments, thereby losing the right to cancel.
30 May 2008
Opua Coastal Estate Limited elected to affirm the contract by paying the second $100,000 instalment with full knowledge that there was no legal road access, and therefore could not validly cancel the contract; even if an arguable equitable lien existed, the balance of convenience favoured discharging the caveat because respondents faced likely significant loss from a delayed sale and Opua had not commenced recovery proceedings.
29 May 2007
An obligation by the franchisor to pass on RFQs to the operator is properly implied into the franchise agreement on the facts (meets BP Refinery/Chitty tests); clause 88 did not unambiguously exclude that implied term given absence of the operations manual and ambiguity; the breach of that implied obligation substantially deprived the operators of the contract's benefit (essential term) entitling them to cancel; and the operators did not affirm the contract because they lacked full knowledge of the extent of the breaches.
12 Sept 2005
The Court held the caveats should not lapse because the applicants established reasonably arguable cases supporting their claimed interests: (1) as to the Arthur Street units, evidence (notably the 11 May 2005 discussion) could support an inference that the respondent affirmed the contracts before the purported cancellation so the agreements survived cancellation and created caveatable interests; (2) as to the Galway Street units, the applicants have a reasonably arguable case that they waived the due diligence condition by written communications meeting the contract's notice requirements. Gi…