New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale and purchase agreement

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2023

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3134

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3134
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the joinder, leave to appeal, stay and set aside applications because the pleaded allegations did not disclose any tenable cause of action against the proposed join defendants; statutory breaches relied on (Companies Act s10, AML/CFT and LINZ certification) do not give rise to private causes of action or invalidate the transactions alleged; no arguable error of law or fact was identified to justify leave to appeal or a stay; costs were appropriately awarded against the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
18 Aug 2023

MACDONALD v MACDONALD [2023] NZHC 2255

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2255
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there is a genuine and material conflict of evidence (including equivocal evidence from the solicitor who prepared the documents) that gives rise to a real question to be tried; plaintiffs did not satisfy the onus under r 12.2 to show the defendant had no defence.
16 Aug 2023

MOHANNAD HASAN TOUBAT v HASAN MOHAMMAD HASAN TOUBAT [2023] NZSC 106 [15 August 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZSC 106
Court

Supreme Court

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient information or evidential basis, failed to meet essential procedural requirements (no statement of claim, no service, no address for service), and the proceeding and subsequent appeal amounted to a misuse of court resources and an abuse of process.
23 Jun 2023

DIBBLE v CIVIC LANE LTD [2023] NZHC 1582

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1582
Court

High Court

Clause 20 was interpreted to require purchaser agreement to any adjustment to the purchase price arising from changes to the outline specifications; costs arising from the developer's conversion of two originally marketed units into a single bespoke apartment were the developer's commercial risk and not recoverable under clause 20; Civic Lane failed to obtain or establish purchaser agreement to the claimed adjustments (other than amounts accepted by Dibble), and therefore summary judgment for specific performance was granted in favour of the plaintiff.
29 Oct 2021

WILLIAMS v TELLEN SYSTEMS NZ (2013) LTD [2021] NZHC 2916

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2916
Court

High Court

Costs were to be assessed separately for each proceeding. Increased costs were not justified because lack of success on factually intensive claims alone did not prove unreasonable conduct and the dishonesty allegations did not amount to unjustified pursuit. Scale 2B costs were awarded but reduced for duplication and for time on unsuccessful matters; expert costs were halved to reflect common evidence. Result: Mr Williams awarded 2B costs of $86,721 (with a set-off to reflect Tellen's award of $41,449.50), trustees awarded $75,763, and disbursements adjusted accordingly.
5 Oct 2021

PATEL v DUNBAR [2021] NZHC 2634

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2634
Court

High Court

The Court recalled its earlier judgment for the limited purpose of reconsidering the precise terms of the discovery orders. The Court held the Dunbar interests are entitled to a comprehensive list of hardware, email addresses and telephone numbers materially used for the business and to discovery of electronic exchanges with customers, but inspection of mixed personal devices must be proportionate: cloning by a forensic specialist is permissible, initial relevance review should be performed by the Patel interests' solicitors who must categorise material as personal or business with a mechanis…
7 Jul 2021

McCAW v OWEN [2021] NZHC 1686

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1686
Court

High Court

There was a valid and certain written contract for sale of Lot 2; the plaintiffs performed and/or part‑performed, were ready, willing and able to pay the balance, the defendants breached by refusing to complete, and specific performance ordering conveyance of Lot 2 in exchange for payment of the balance is appropriate; equitable damages are declined.
17 Mar 2021

GRP HOLDINGS LIMITED v VP NOMINEES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 545

Citation

(2021) 21 NZCPR 915
Court

High Court

The Court held GRP had a reasonably arguable case on multiple grounds such that the caveat should be sustained: there is at least an arguable basis that an agreed pre-settlement inspection existed (rectification/agency/mistake/estoppel issues), that methamphetamine contamination engaged cl 5.2(2) and that the cl 8.4 procedure for interim deduction was triggered and not followed by the vendor, and that misrepresentation claims under the CCLA/FTA were reasonably arguable; accordingly VP Nominees could not be regarded as in all material respects ready, willing and able to settle when it purporte…
11 Mar 2021

MGH TRAH LIMITED, LIONEL JOHN HART AND JUDEE LOUISE HART AS TRUSTEES OF THE ANDRE AND JOSHUA HART TRUST v FOX MORTIMER TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2021] NZCA 59 [11 March 2021]

Citation

(2021) 22 NZCPR 102
Court

Court of Appeal

Payment of an interim amount to a stakeholder in accordance with clause 8.4 on the settlement date satisfies the purchaser's obligation to pay the purchase price for the purposes of clause 3.8, and operates to defer the vendor's entitlement to payment (and thus the due date for payment to the vendor) in respect of that interim amount; accordingly default interest under clause 3.12 is not payable by the purchaser on an interim amount properly paid to a stakeholder under clause 8.4, although interest earned on the stakeholder deposit follows the destination of the interim amount as provided by…
1 Mar 2021

BARGROVE v MSM HOLDINGS NZ LTD [2021] NZHC 322

Citation

[2021] NZHC 322
Court

High Court

Given payment of the purchase price and selection of Lot 5, the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable equitable interest in the property and, because material uncertainties existed about the operation and date-effect of the sunset clause and the settlement date, it was not patently clear the caveat could not be maintained; accordingly the caveat was ordered not to lapse.