21 Nov 2023
The court dismissed the application for a stay because the defendants' insolvency concerns were speculative and insufficient to outweigh the concrete prejudice to the plaintiff from delaying payment; the balance of convenience favored refusal of the stay and immediate enforcement of the judgment.
6 Sept 2023
The Court found no actionable misrepresentation or breach of the SPA warranty on the pleaded grounds (building report caveats and Schedule 1 exemptions). The decisive legal basis for relief was common mistake: both parties were influenced by a shared mistaken belief that the recently replaced roof and supporting ceiling/wall space were free of materially defective fire damage. That common mistake resulted in a sufficiently unequal exchange of value to justify relief under s24/s28 CCLA. Remedy set as diminution in value (cost to rectify the fire damage) of $130,000 plus interest from settlemen…
26 Jul 2023
The Court refused to award increased or indemnity costs because the defendants' defences were not so lacking in merit or pursued in such a way as to meet the high threshold for exceptional costs; defendants' reliance on a retrospective ISA and arguments about purchaser obtaining a DSA were not hopeless or vexatious; plaintiff awarded ordinary category 2B scale costs and recoverable disbursements subject to specified deductions and further particulars for potential overlap with electronic discovery claims.
5 Apr 2023
The Court held the ISA and the Information Memorandum statements operated as representations of fact (not mere non‑actionable opinion) in context, the representations that the Property was 60% NBS and had a "good" NBS rating were incorrect and induced the plaintiff to buy; plaintiff reasonably relied on them and suffered loss; NZCEL's ISA was prepared within a defensible range of professional judgment and the contractual limitation on NZCEL's liability was enforceable under s5D of the Fair Trading Act; damages for the plaintiff were assessed by difference in value, and common mistake was an a…
14 Jun 2022
Cause of action estoppel did not apply because a non‑party costs application is supplemental to a final judgment; jurisdiction to order non‑party costs existed under Dymocks; causation was established on a 'but for' basis because Andrew funded, enabled and controlled the proceedings and would have benefited as sole shareholder; discretionary considerations therefore required Andrew to pay the costs and disbursements ordered against Biscuit Creek.
1 Nov 2021
The Owner's share passed to the family trust with the land absent an express severance; the OS Agreement was entered under a common mistake about ownership and GST entitlement induced more directly by the purchaser, and the appropriate remedy was to cancel the contract under the statutory mistake provisions and restore the parties rather than to compel performance or award expectation compensation to the purchaser.
8 Jun 2021
Apply High Court Rules: Simon and Rosa entitled to 2B scale costs on the first proceeding but reduced by 12% to reflect unsuccessful or unpursued affirmative defences that significantly increased Biscuit Creek's costs; Andrew entitled to 2B scale costs on the second proceeding only to the extent of additional costs he would not have incurred but for that proceeding (including filing the defence to that proceeding and a modest allowance of 1.5 additional days for trial preparation/hearing), applying the Medway principle to overlapping proceedings; non-expert professional witness fees approved…
27 Jan 2021
The statutory demand was set aside because there is a reasonably arguable common mistake: both parties reasonably believed the Velide resource consents permitted the harvesting or that no further consents were required, creating a genuine dispute about Zindia's liability and the quantum such that the statutory demand procedure was inappropriate to resolve the claim.
25 Sept 2019
Court held both parties were operating under a common mistake that the house did not leak; clauses 9 and 18 did not unambiguously allocate the risk of that mistake to the purchaser; purchaser's unreasonable reliance did not bar relief though it was a factor to apportion loss; there was a substantially unequal exchange of value of about $1.5m and the court granted relief under s24/s28, apportioning the burden 70/30 in favour of the vendor, resulting in an award to the plaintiff of $450,000 plus statutory interest.
14 Feb 2019
Misrepresentation claim dismissed: vendor's repeated statements that the house did not leak were representations of his knowledge/opinion but were honestly and reasonably held given his maintenance regime and lack of observable defects; purchaser's reliance was induced but unreasonable in light of an expert pre-purchase report identifying potential weathertightness defects; no fraud proved; matter of common mistake reserved for further hearing as parties may have shared a mistaken assumption about the absence of leaking.