New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 225 resource management act 1991

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2009

SPIJKERMAN AND SPIJKERMAN V FEATHERSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA397/2009

Citation

openlaw-5eb2fc83_ce42_4397_a01e_60dad0654480.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 4.4 must be read as referring to the three year time period specified in clause 4.5.2; it gives either party a right to cancel at or shortly after the three year anniversary irrespective of vendor progress, and the appellants validly cancelled the agreement; summary judgment was appropriate and ordered for repayment of the deposit and interest.
11 Jun 2009

SPIJKERMAN & ANOR V FEATHERSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2008-019-1404

Citation

openlaw-97c96cb6_15a2_4d16_a821_6a94c20c642d.pdf
Court

High Court

The court concluded the plaintiff's literal interpretation of clause 4.4 as giving an unconditional three year sunset was not correct because it creates disharmony and renders the modified s225(2)(b) RMA provision superfluous; there is a reasonably arguable alternative construction that cancellation after three years is contingent on the vendor's lack of reasonable progress or failure to deposit within reasonable time, and resolution requires consideration of matrix facts; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the application was dismissed.
6 Mar 2008

MAHESH PARSOT V GREIG DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-5164

Citation

openlaw-dac77742_2d42_4f41_bc18_2d9e9564ac4e.pdf
Court

High Court

The notice making time of the essence (4 November 2005) was premature because six months after settlement was insufficient given the planning and council processes; clause 16 obliged the purchaser to obtain subdivision approval to provide lot 1 but did not require futile or premature steps while the operative planning regime made subdivision likely non-complying; cancellation based on the premature notice was invalid and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
4 Sept 2006

STEELE AND ROBERTS V SEREPISOS SC 68/2005

Citation

STEELE AND ROBERTS V SEREPISOS SC 68/2005
Court

Supreme Court

By majority the Court held that the vendor's duty under s 225 is to take all reasonable steps to obtain deposit of the plan and to comply with reasonable council conditions, but where the vendor has taken all reasonable steps and the condition remains unfulfilled the vendor may, in appropriate circumstances, treat the contract as at an end without being required as a matter of law to give the purchaser a preliminary warning notice akin to making time of the essence; the Court accordingly allowed the vendors' appeal and dismissed the purchaser's cross-appeal and entered judgment for the vendor…
27 Mar 2006

SWETMAN AND WESTHAM HOLDINGS LIMITED V GLOBE HOLDINGS LIMITED SC 69/2005

Citation

SC 69/2005
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicants remained contractually obliged to undertake the subdivision and could not invoke s225(2) or their own default; the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion in refusing additional evidence; the issues raised are fact‑specific and do not meet the Supreme Court Act s13 threshold of general or public importance.

New Zealand Case Law

SPIJKERMAN AND SPIJKERMAN V FEATHERSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA397/2009

SPIJKERMAN & ANOR V FEATHERSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2008-019-1404

MAHESH PARSOT V GREIG DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-5164

STEELE AND ROBERTS V SEREPISOS SC 68/2005

SWETMAN AND WESTHAM HOLDINGS LIMITED V GLOBE HOLDINGS LIMITED SC 69/2005