1 Nov 2023
The court found the defendant had a reasonably arguable defence that the Property was untenantable at settlement because the yellow placard legally restricted occupation and there was evidence of damage (bank collapse and soil stress cracks threatening piles); the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of showing no defence, so summary judgment on liability was dismissed.
8 Sept 2023
Summary judgment was dismissed because the vendor had reasonably arguable defences: it was arguable cl 23 was not unilaterally waivable once vendor approval was inserted and was intrinsically linked to cl 26 vendor finance (not severable), and it was also reasonably arguable The Rise failed to procure vendor finance compliant with cl 26 constituting repudiation; accordingly there were real questions to be tried and summary judgment on liability was inappropriate.
4 Aug 2023
The Court concluded it was strongly arguable AD International was the disclosed principal and thus a creditor; there exist genuine and substantial disputes as to the number of boxes delivered/retained and whether NZ Superfood repudiated the contract (entitling AD International to a refund). Those disputes are sufficiently real to justify setting aside the statutory demand under s 290(4)(a).
17 May 2023
Summary judgment was declined because there are genuine conflicts of affidavit evidence on whether Jenhash repudiated the contracts and on whether the front-page statement constituted a contractual term or misrepresentation; however, the freezing order was continued because Eco-Smart has a good arguable case and there is a serious risk of dissipation, and the freezing order was varied to cap assets at $400,000 in accordance with r 32.6(2).
3 Apr 2023
Clause 2 construed as permitting Kempton to satisfy the resource-consent condition by using all commercially reasonable endeavours and, if approvals were close, to extend the date by up to two months (to 1 September 2018); Kempton obtained consent on 28–29 August 2018 and notified StraitNZ and received no objection, so the condition was satisfied within the specified period; StraitNZ's written cancellation on 20 September 2018 was therefore an unlawful repudiation; estoppel, waiver, variation and affirmation were not established; damages assessed on a mixed methodology to reflect expectation…
31 Mar 2023
The Business Sale Agreement and later Stock Agreement, read together and in context, constituted a binding agreement to purchase identified stock; the joint stocktake obligations were either performed or waived by the purchaser; PCCL was bound to pay the agreed stock price and contractual interest despite arguments about legal title or usability; the misrepresentation/FTA claims failed for lack of inducement and causal loss; and the defendant did not prove that Mr Lally repudiated the consultancy agreement, so unpaid consultancy invoices are recoverable.
18 Aug 2022
The application to stay or dismiss was dismissed because the Fair Trading Act and passing off causes of action could not be said to have no prospect of success or to be an abuse of process given the pleaded facts; the statutory opposition process did not plainly and necessarily preclude these causes of action and dismissal at this interlocutory stage was not justified.
15 Aug 2022
Appeal dismissed: judge correctly found any initial agent misrepresentation was corrected before contract formation; purchaser did not validly and unconditionally invoke the clause 8 compensation procedure in time (boundary claim was conditional and not properly particularised) and thus could not withhold settlement; vendor's settlement notice was valid and vendor was entitled to treat purchaser's purported cancellation as repudiation and cancel; damages awarded for foreseeable losses were appropriate.
16 Mar 2022
On an objective assessment of the agreement and contemporaneous communications the contract was between Fluid and Sarwar, the Agreement and parties' conduct permitted progressive invoicing (clause 8), Fluid provided sufficient detail to support the invoice, and there was no genuine or substantial dispute that the debt was due; therefore the statutory demand should not be set aside.
16 Dec 2021
No binding contract was formed on the pleaded essential terms because the parties did not objectively agree on essential elements (notably duration and timing) and no fixed timeframe was committed; accordingly KTL's claims for breach, repudiation, estoppel and misleading/deceptive conduct fail; parts of the restitution/quantum meruit claim were precluded by negotiated settlement of certain invoices and others are reserved for supplementary determination; MBNZ's counterclaims fail.