New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right of pre-emption

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2011

TECHNIX GROUP LIMITED V FITZROY ENGINEERING GROUP LIMITED CA CA337/2010

Citation

openlaw-746b4a69_7bcc_4251_9db6_32e300e18500.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Subclause (c)'s phrase 'at any time during the term of the lease' must be read in context and modified so it does not apply when subclause (a) or (b) has been engaged; permitting literal invocation of (c) during an active option process would nullify the option and frustrate the parties' intentions, so the appeal is dismissed on that basis.
25 May 2006

HADFIELD V RIVERS AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-000678

Citation

openlaw-fd08f694_e9da_4b2b_9b0a_ad07f417e9d3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held clause 23 should be interpreted, objectively against the factual matrix, as limiting the lessor's ability to sell the property to the defined marketing period; a sale outside that period does not trigger the lessee's right of pre-emption whereas a sale during active marketing does; the arbitrator misinterpreted clause 23 on that point and the question of breach and damages must be remitted to the arbitrator to decide.
1 Sept 2005

SENTIERO PROPERTIES LIMITED AND MAKATITI LIMITED V O'LEARY AND ORS AND ANOR HC ROT CIV 2005-463-399

Citation

openlaw-8b996af3_b1b7_457b_bb4f_8f8bbb511a0e.pdf
Court

High Court

Because clause 21 created an earlier equitable interest in Farmers and there is sufficient doubt about what notice was known or imputed to Sentiero and about the parties' conduct, the court should preserve the status quo pending full hearing; accordingly an interim injunction was necessary and appropriate to protect the competing equities and the caveat was to be sustained.

New Zealand Case Law

TECHNIX GROUP LIMITED V FITZROY ENGINEERING GROUP LIMITED CA CA337/2010

HADFIELD V RIVERS AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-000678

SENTIERO PROPERTIES LIMITED AND MAKATITI LIMITED V O'LEARY AND ORS AND ANOR HC ROT CIV 2005-463-399