11 Jun 2009
SPIJKERMAN & ANOR V FEATHERSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2008-019-1404
- Citation
- openlaw-97c96cb6_15a2_4d16_a821_6a94c20c642d.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The court concluded the plaintiff's literal interpretation of clause 4.4 as giving an unconditional three year sunset was not correct because it creates disharmony and renders the modified s225(2)(b) RMA provision superfluous; there is a reasonably arguable alternative construction that cancellation after three years is contingent on the vendor's lack of reasonable progress or failure to deposit within reasonable time, and resolution requires consideration of matrix facts; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the application was dismissed.