New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deposits

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2019

BCH INVESTMENTS LTD v ZHU (NO 2) [2019] NZHC 2014

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2014
Court

High Court

Defendant defaulted; the valuer's affidavit satisfied evidentiary requirements and established market value of $300,000 per lot as at 5 August 2019; computing the difference between contracted price and current realizable value, adding interest and incurred costs, produced losses of $180,622 for Lot 64 and $180,620 for Lot 65, for which judgment is entered, with costs and disbursements apportioned between the two proceedings.
18 Jun 2019

DOBSON & ANOR v XIA [2019] NZHC 1371

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1371
Court

High Court

Having previously determined liability on summary judgment, the court accepted the plaintiffs' unopposed quantification of loss, substituted a reasonable compensatory interest rate (10% for 111 days) for the contractual penalty rate, deducted the deposits (including the $25,000 from an unenforceable Second Agreement), and entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum $122,447.67 with costs on a 2B basis.
12 Dec 2012

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER 205990 V THE SHERIFF HC AK CIV-2012-404-005625

Citation

openlaw-621087db_30c7_4b39_a78a_afb9aa6128ad.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 14, read in its entirety and in the context of the sale particulars and auction, meant the mortgage would be repaid by the seller (the first defendant) from the proceeds of sale and did not make the purchaser personally liable under s203; the first defendant's purported rescission was void because the purchaser was ready, willing and able to settle on 6 April 2011; specific performance of the agreement was ordered on the terms of the 4 April 2011 settlement statement updated to actual settlement date; settlement proceeds must first discharge the ASB mortgage and the charging order is t…
20 Jun 2011

FEATHERSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENTS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V HU & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-001041

Citation

openlaw-7a852528_6248_42ea_a3c6_5a2f14ca10ea.pdf
Court

High Court

The caveats were removed because the interest they purported to protect (an ongoing purchaser's interest 'pursuant to' the sale agreements) did not exist: the respondents had elected to cancel and the correct caveatable interest, if any, was a purchaser's lien for deposits which the caveats did not plead; accordingly the caveats failed to comply with the Land Transfer Act and must be removed.
7 Nov 2006

RICHARDS AND ANOR V RICHARDS BROS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2006-409-001428

Citation

openlaw-0304ca08_9fa7_43e6_b913_0e21f6f64200.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because the shareholder resolution was ambiguous as to whether it recorded a concluded contract, material factual disputes existed about intention to be bound, the alleged condition precedent (cessation of farming/sale of other land) may not have been satisfied, and credibility/conflicts of evidence required oral hearing before a binding determination could be made.

New Zealand Case Law

BCH INVESTMENTS LTD v ZHU (NO 2) [2019] NZHC 2014

DOBSON & ANOR v XIA [2019] NZHC 1371

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER 205990 V THE SHERIFF HC AK CIV-2012-404-005625

FEATHERSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENTS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V HU & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-001041

RICHARDS AND ANOR V RICHARDS BROS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2006-409-001428