New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale and purchase of land

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2019

SANDERSON v NEUTZE [2019] NZHC 2471

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2471
Court

High Court

Summary judgment for specific performance was granted because the contract expressly provided for specific performance, plaintiffs demonstrated readiness to settle, the defendant failed to comply with the settlement notice and filed no defence or explanation, no undue hardship to the defendant was shown, and discretionary factors favored granting the equitable remedy; unpleaded additional damages claims cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
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.
4 Apr 2019

DOBSON & ANOR v XIA [2019] NZHC 692

Citation

[2019] NZHC 692
Court

High Court

The First Agreement was a valid signed contract which the defendant breached by failing to settle within the contractual and notice periods; the purported Second Agreement was not enforceable because it lacked the defendant's signature and there was insufficient evidence her solicitors had authority to bind her; liability for breach of the First Agreement is entered for the plaintiffs and assessment of damages is deferred pending further evidence.
31 May 2018

STRACK & ORS v GREY [2018] NZHC 1254

Citation

(2018) 19 NZCPR 687
Court

High Court

Clause 9.3 requires a written building report sufficient to permit an objective property‑specific assessment; defendant cancelled before obtaining an adequate written report and the Linwood email was insufficient to discharge clause 9.3; that conduct amounted to repudiatory breach entitling vendors to cancel; vendors proved breach but not loss because defendant failed to prove he would have obtained finance, so damages limited to nominal $100.
16 Dec 2014

COUGHLAN v COX CA128/2014 [2014] NZCA 617

Citation

(2014) 16 NZCPR 66
Court

Court of Appeal

On the facts the Court held that the parties intended to be bound by the signed agreements and subsequent conduct, the vendors' solicitor had implied authority to agree the post‑contract amendments, the tenancy condition was effectively satisfied or waived by conduct and written communications, and specific performance of the swap was ordered; damages for delay were remitted to the High Court to be quantified on the basis of lost rent (assessed at $380/week) subject to appropriate offsets and mitigation.
19 Feb 2014

ROBB V JAMES CA472/2011 [2014] NZCA 42

Citation

[2014] NZCA 42
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because the evidence established a common continuing intention that the sale include the 'lost land' at the time the ASP was executed, the purchaser's protests and informal dealings explained the delay and did not constitute acquiescence sufficient to bar rectification, and imposing a constructive trust on the son who acquired legal title with notice was necessary and appropriate to give effect to the parties' bargain and prevent unconscionable conduct.
19 Dec 2013

ROBERT and ROBERTSON v AGRI TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3479

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3479
Court

High Court

Contractual late settlement (penalty) interest is not the appropriate measure of damages following cancellation of a sale of land; the correct approach is compensatory and may include actual holding costs and interest paid or forgone to put the vendor in the position had the contract been performed. Applying that approach the plaintiffs were awarded $464,730.78 and the guarantor was held liable.
15 Dec 2011

VERBOEKET V SEAVIEW ROAD LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-032-190

Citation

openlaw-b4e79e7d_a081_46eb_b357_9564e586c42f.pdf
Court

High Court

The vendor's 23 December 2009 cancellation was effectively reinstated by the purchaser's subsequent letters and accepted by the vendor, creating a binding (unconditional) contract; the purchaser acted dishonestly regarding receipt of the cancellation; the alleged failure to disclose the Nicholls lease was inadvertent and caused no proven loss so equitable and Fair Trading Act claims fail; purchaser failed to tender settlement and vendor validly cancelled for non‑settlement and is entitled to damages of $467,925.32.
29 Nov 2011

AHIPARA DEVELOPMENTS LTD V HAPE HC AK CIV-2011-404-1269

Citation

openlaw-1e364105_244d_4ac7_abb4_b823ef07b452.pdf
Court

High Court

The agreements became unconditional (conditions fulfilled or waived), deposits were paid and the defendants refused to complete without offering a defence or showing inability to comply; accordingly specific performance of the two sale and purchase agreements is ordered as the preferable remedy to damages.
31 Aug 2011

SCOTT v ELLISON SC 84/2011

Citation

SC 84/2011
Court

Supreme Court

Because Ms Scott was an owner when the disputed building works were done and remained an owner until she gave the vendor's warranty, the warranty applied to her; there was no contractual provision limiting the warranty to acts done after co-ownership, so the High Court and Court of Appeal were not in error.