New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deposit security

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2021

LU v WILA DEVELOPMENTS (ORMISTON) LP [2021] NZHC 3099

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3099
Court

High Court

The application for stay was declined because the appeal was likely rendered nugatory in practical effect as the caveats had been perfected and removed and Wila had entered unconditional sales risking prejudice from delay; the 17 March 2021 letter did not amount to repudiation and there was no written extension of the sunset date; on balance of convenience the prejudice to Wila and third parties outweighed the applicant's interest, so a stay was refused.
19 Feb 2015

TAURANGA LAW v JOHN APPLETON AND NATALIE MARIE RYAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE APPLETON FAMILY TRUST [2015] NZSC 3

Citation

[2015] 1 NZLR 814
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge was entitled to prefer the contemporaneous documents and conduct over later assertions; the 31 May letter and contract indicated the deposit was advanced for the vendor's use and the purchaser's lack of reaction showed he would have proceeded regardless, so the breaches did not, on the balance of probabilities, cause the loss of the deposit.
6 Sept 2013

APPLETON & ANOR v TAURANGA LAW CA858/2011 [2013] NZCA 420

Citation

[2013] 3 NZLR 777
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held Tauranga Law breached its duty by failing to give adequate advice about the true nature and magnitude of the risks (including that Rockfort did not own the land, the deposit was released to Blue Chip with no trust protection, lack of specifications and developer obligations, and the right to cancel under RMA s225). Proper advice would have led the appellant to withdraw and not pay the deposit; therefore the negligent advice caused the loss. Appeal allowed and judgment to be entered for the appellants for the claimed amount plus interest (excluding general damages).
17 May 2010

SHIRLEEN SHIA LING SIM V NEW ZEALAND HOME BONDS LTD CA697/2009

Citation

openlaw-2d278000_19c6_4d8a_8c26_6a9f259fab7a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The bond issuer (NZHB) was obliged to pay upon receipt of an expired settlement notice with proof of valid service unless the purchaser credibly puts the validity of that settlement notice (i.e. that the settlement date had not occurred because of lack of practical completion or title) in issue; mere protest or unrelated disputes do not relieve NZHB of payment obligations.

New Zealand Case Law

LU v WILA DEVELOPMENTS (ORMISTON) LP [2021] NZHC 3099

TAURANGA LAW v JOHN APPLETON AND NATALIE MARIE RYAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE APPLETON FAMILY TRUST [2015] NZSC 3

APPLETON & ANOR v TAURANGA LAW CA858/2011 [2013] NZCA 420

SHIRLEEN SHIA LING SIM V NEW ZEALAND HOME BONDS LTD CA697/2009