New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Option agreement

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2017

CLEARY v EWART & EWART [2017] NZCA 620

Citation

[2017] NZCA 620
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court finding that the solicitor did not breach his duty of care: he acted within the scope of his instructions, reasonably advised on legal and tax issues, properly conferred with the vendor's solicitor, and any loss was not caused by his conduct but by the vendor's independent decision (motivated by 'bad blood') and by the legal effect of the option deed which conferred no enforceable right on the purchaser; appeal dismissed.
23 Oct 2013

LIM SEOK EE BERENICE v 125 GILLS LTD [2013] NZHC 2779

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2779
Court

High Court

The caveat failed because it did not describe the claimed purchaser's lien with sufficient certainty as required by s 137; however it was arguable that a purchaser's lien arose on termination of the option agreement and that clause 9.4 could be narrowly construed so as not to extinguish a lien created on termination, therefore leave was granted under s 148 to lodge a properly drafted second caveat while the current statutory caveat was ordered to lapse at the specified time.
1 Oct 2013

BERENICE v 125 GILLS LTD [2013] NZHC 2559

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2559
Court

High Court

The application for particular discovery was dismissed because the respondent amended its notice of opposition to remove the indefeasibility ground, thereby rendering the requested documents about the vendor-respondent relationship irrelevant to the remaining issues (whether an arguable equitable interest arises from the option agreements and whether the applicant waived those rights). Only the existence of an arguable equitable interest and any waiver remain for determination.
8 Dec 2006

TNF BANDIT V AIR NATIONAL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-1886

Citation

openlaw-de414e51_608f_400b_b9cf_4e59cee01cd2.pdf
Court

High Court

Breach of the warranty that the aircraft be fit for immediate operation under Part 125 was established but was not substantial because the aircraft could lawfully operate at a lower MCTOW and the plaintiff continued to receive the primary benefit of the option; TNF Bandit did not validly cancel nor prove repudiation; claims against the director failed for lack of personal representation; accordingly plaintiff's claims failed and judgment is for the defendants.

New Zealand Case Law

CLEARY v EWART & EWART [2017] NZCA 620

LIM SEOK EE BERENICE v 125 GILLS LTD [2013] NZHC 2779

BERENICE v 125 GILLS LTD [2013] NZHC 2559

TNF BANDIT V AIR NATIONAL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-1886