16 Nov 2017
The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the Cryns' claim was founded on a personal contractual obligation/licence enforceable under the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 in relation to a cable that is a fixture; fixtures are excluded from 'land' under s11(6) so the claim did not require determining title to an estate or interest in land and was not excluded by s11(5).
27 May 2016
The statement of claim was struck out because the pleaded partnership agreement did not include or designate Muse on Allen Ltd such that s 4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 could be relied upon, so there was no reasonably arguable cause of action against the defendant, and independently the proceeding was invalidly commenced because the statement of claim was signed and filed by a non‑solicitor (Mr Malcolm North).
14 Apr 2016
On the pleaded facts and available material it was not plain and obvious that MDS Law could not have assumed duties to investors; the strike‑out on limitation grounds as to the 22 December 2006 payment was premature and the pleading must be restored to permit trial determination of whether MDS Law assumed such duties or whether limitation applies.
15 Apr 2014
The caveat was removed because it failed to comply with s137(2)(c) of the Land Transfer Act 1952 by not sufficiently stating how Park Lane's claimed interest was derived from the registered proprietors; Park Lane did not establish any assignment and did not pursue the oral assignment argument, so the caveat could not be maintained and the application to sustain it was dismissed.
4 Nov 2013
Summary judgment for either party was inappropriate because there is a real and material dispute about the proper construction of the covenant—specifically whether the benefit was intended to be limited to an incorporated society—and the factual matrix necessary to resolve that ambiguity could not be adequately determined on the summary judgment record; accordingly both applications were dismissed and the matter requires further case management/trial.
14 Jul 2010
Laidlaw v Parsonage binds the court: a nominee under a sale agreement obtains the benefit of the contract under s 4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982; the strike out application was correctly dismissed because the pleaded tort duty is novel and factually sensitive and cannot be said with certainty to be unsustainable without trial; the Associate Judge's decision is upheld.
24 Jun 2010
Leave to appeal was refused: Wylie J's interlocutory conclusion that the memorandum of transfer and notice of change of ownership constituted notice of assignment does not create binding issue estoppel precluding re‑examination at trial or on appeal; the point is of limited public importance given repeal of s130; granting leave would materially disrupt an imminent trial and would not dispose of the substantive proceedings, so leave is not justified.
22 Dec 2008
Admission of liability established a misrepresentation but did not remove the need to assess causation; the Court reduced the misrepresentation-based award by 50% to reflect material contribution of supervening factors and recalculated damages accordingly; restraint of trade breaches warranted only nominal damages; settlement sum applied against damages (not interest) and interest ordered on the full substituted damages; appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed.
16 Sept 2008
The nominee (Shridhana) obtained enforceable rights under s4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982; the defendant failed to raise a credible, independently supported forgery defence because handwriting expert evidence indicated the defendant probably signed the agreement and variations and other evidence undermined her account; the 3 July 2008 cancellation did not defeat a proceeding already instituted; on that basis there was no real defence and summary judgment ordering specific performance and costs was granted.
22 Nov 2007
The Court held that the High Court judge correctly found that s 19A(5)(a) and (b) applied because the action raised difficult legal issues and technical/scientific and accounting matters unsuitable for jury determination, and that the judge did not misexercise his discretion in ordering trial before a judge alone; the appeal was dismissed.