New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages on resale

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2019

ZHANG v ZHAO [2019] NZHC 526

Citation

[2019] NZHC 526
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed under High Court Rules r 12.12(2)(b) because the defendant has an arguable defence and counterclaim founded on alleged misrepresentations and factual disputes (including contemporaneous advertising, oral statements and LIM/flood evidence) that cannot be safely resolved on summary judgment; therefore the matter must proceed to trial with directions for amended pleadings and case management.
25 Aug 2016

STRACK & WMC TRUSTEE LTD v GREY (Privilege) [2016] NZHC 1980

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1980
Court

High Court

Documents D102–D105 (dated 27 February 2014) were prepared for the dominant purpose of preparing for an apprehended proceeding and are privileged under s56 Evidence Act 2006; the handwritten file note dated 26 February 2014 is not privileged because it records routine instructions about cancelling the contract and contains no indication that a proceeding was apprehended, and s56 requires an apprehended proceeding, not a mere possibility.
15 Dec 2011

VERBOEKET V SEAVIEW ROAD LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-032-190

Citation

openlaw-b4e79e7d_a081_46eb_b357_9564e586c42f.pdf
Court

High Court

The vendor's 23 December 2009 cancellation was effectively reinstated by the purchaser's subsequent letters and accepted by the vendor, creating a binding (unconditional) contract; the purchaser acted dishonestly regarding receipt of the cancellation; the alleged failure to disclose the Nicholls lease was inadvertent and caused no proven loss so equitable and Fair Trading Act claims fail; purchaser failed to tender settlement and vendor validly cancelled for non‑settlement and is entitled to damages of $467,925.32.
22 Apr 2010

THE DOCKS LIMITED V JIAN BAO LIN HC AK CIV-2008-404-003768

Citation

openlaw-9e594ae1_5880_484e_a280_fb4faffb1005.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff validly cancelled for the defendant's failure to settle, was entitled under clause 9.4(3) to recover common law damages including interest, resale losses, outgoings and contractual costs; the court found a cost of funds of about 25% reasonable and awarded damages calculated at $520,042.79, with solicitor-client costs of $23,879.29 included, and entered judgment by default.
17 Feb 2009

WILLIAMSON & ORS V BENNETT HC AK CIV 2008-404-002612

Citation

openlaw-36ccbe51_b022_4feb_969d_11013622bb74.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant, despite contracting as trustee, was personally liable because the agreement did not exclude personal liability; the alleged misrepresentation was vague and did not establish an arguable defence or inducement; clause 11.4 validly entitles the vendors to recover the loss on bona fide resale together with interest and resale costs; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and granted for the plaintiffs.

New Zealand Case Law

ZHANG v ZHAO [2019] NZHC 526

STRACK & WMC TRUSTEE LTD v GREY (Privilege) [2016] NZHC 1980

VERBOEKET V SEAVIEW ROAD LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-032-190

THE DOCKS LIMITED V JIAN BAO LIN HC AK CIV-2008-404-003768

WILLIAMSON & ORS V BENNETT HC AK CIV 2008-404-002612