20 Dec 2022
The Court declined the stay because the appeal appeared weak, PSDL's litigation history evidenced delay and unmeritorious tactics, the balance of convenience favoured Hawken who had succeeded in the High Court, and the possibility of liquidation did not outweigh these considerations nor decisively render the appeal nugatory.
20 Jul 2022
PSDL's claims dismissed: the deposits were not penal and no relief against forfeiture was available; PSDL elected to continue with the Lot 22 arrangement and could not rely on the sunset clause so Lot 22 deposit was not recoverable; the caveat was lodged without reasonable cause and PSDL is liable under s148 LTA for losses caused by the caveat; judgment awarded to Hawken in the aggregate amount stated.
9 Aug 2021
The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried or a reasonably arguable path to specific performance of an unconditional sale and purchase agreement; the plaintiff's causes of action at best give rise to monetary remedies and do not justify restraining dealings in the land.
14 Jul 2021
Defendant failed to make agency and the identity of the principal plain to the plaintiff; the 19 June text message did not disclose an identified principal so clause 1.4(2) of the SPA left defendant personally liable; the plaintiff's statement of costs was not a misleading actionable misrepresentation; contractual damages including interest at 14% and forfeited deposit were enforceable and not penal; summary judgment granted for plaintiff.
11 Nov 2020
The vendor made material misrepresentations by presenting a positive expert report and disclosures while omitting and distorting known significant weathertightness issues and prior remedial works; plaintiffs were induced and reasonably relied on those representations; the misrepresentations materially reduced the benefit of the contract entitling plaintiffs to cancel under s 37 CCLA; repair works undertaken required building consent so the contractual warranty was breached; plaintiffs entitled to compensation — interim judgment awarded $132,123 with further legal cost assessment to follow.
20 Nov 2019
Reinstatement was required because the breach was not deliberate flouting, excusing circumstances and substantive remedy were present, and prejudice to the respondent was remediable by strict conditions including prompt payment of security for costs and ensuring valid trustee appointments; the High Court placed excessive weight on delay and bankruptcy status.
4 Apr 2019
The First Agreement was a valid signed contract which the defendant breached by failing to settle within the contractual and notice periods; the purported Second Agreement was not enforceable because it lacked the defendant's signature and there was insufficient evidence her solicitors had authority to bind her; liability for breach of the First Agreement is entered for the plaintiffs and assessment of damages is deferred pending further evidence.
16 Nov 2017
Summary judgment was dismissed because there were reasonably arguable factual disputes (notably whether defendants prevented the valuer from producing a genuine pre-estimate under clause 8 and whether that caused the plaintiffs' failure to comply with clause 8) such that the defendants had an arguable defence to the claim for return of the deposit and it was not appropriate to resolve these issues on summary judgment.
11 Aug 2017
Purchaser was entitled to avoid the contract because the finance condition remained unfulfilled after a reasonable time for obtaining title and settlement had passed; where the condition is for the purchaser's benefit and there is no vendor default, no prior notice of intention to cancel is required; accordingly the vendor must return the deposit.
18 Aug 2016
The Court concluded there was no arguable, genuine and substantial dispute that the sums in the statutory demand were due and owing: the parties' contemporaneous email established payments were sync'd to the 1st of the month so December invoices were due; Geotech's disabling of equipment was not repudiation as it offered reinstatement on payment; the upfront payment could not be applied to defeat the demand; alleged non‑supply was minor and speculative; Koura failed to mitigate, so the statutory demand was not set aside.