New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Waiver of condition

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2023

5-9 THE RISE LIMITED v RENTAL SPACE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2515

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2515
Court

High Court

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.
1 Jun 2023

CHENG’S CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD v GENERUS LIVING GROUP LTD [2023] NZHC 1373

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1373
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because there are substantial disputed facts and legally complex issues (effectiveness of waiver, whether Generus was in material breach under cl 13, and whether the settlement notice of two working days was a reasonable period) which make it arguable that Generus did not validly cancel; those issues cannot be resolved on strike out and Cheng's claim for specific performance is therefore not without reasonable prospect of success.
17 Jul 2018

LI v GSC HOLDINGS LTD [2018] NZHC 1769

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1769
Court

High Court

The vendor's waiver was not an available means to satisfy clause 22.1(a) because the procurement of a s 224 certificate was a prerequisite to the vendor's core obligation to provide title and therefore not severable; consequently the purchaser validly cancelled under clause 44 and is entitled to the deposit, and summary judgment is appropriate.
4 May 2015

SINGH AND BOURCHIER AS TRUSTEES OF SHEAN SINGH FAMILY TRUST v POTTERS PARK PROPERTY LIMITED CA604/2014 [2015] NZCA 146

Citation

[2015] NZCA 146
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Trust failed to obtain the resource consent for additional rear parking within the two-year condition in clause 3(d); although Potters breached an implied obligation by not assisting and by obtaining a one-way traffic condition, the Trust had effectively abandoned its original plan to obtain permanent rear parking and elected to defer the issue, and therefore the condition precedent was not fulfilled and the ROW agreement ended on expiry of the two-year period.
17 Oct 2014

WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED v SONGLE SUPERMARKET LIMITED & ORS [2014] NZHC 2548

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2548
Court

High Court

Application for interim injunction dismissed because WDL failed to establish a serious question to be tried against the purchasers: insufficient evidence that the purchasers engaged in conduct that induced breach or had requisite knowledge; damages were capable of quantification and defendants could meet an award; delay by WDL and prejudice to purchasers meant the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured refusal of interim relief.
4 Aug 2010

BARTHOLOMEW AND ORS V MARIMA VALLEY FARM LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-454-373

Citation

openlaw-413bb771_4b67_4467_93e6_27a9f37b962d.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 22.9 was for the sole benefit of the purchaser and therefore validly waived under clause 8.7(6); clauses 22.2 and 22.8 provide contractual mechanisms (including trust provisions and price adjustments) to address any failure to transfer shares, so the vendor had no relevant interest sufficient to prevent waiver; the vendor's cancellation was ineffective and the purchaser is therefore entitled to specific performance.
4 Aug 2006

YARDLEY AND WILLIAMS V SHARP AND SHARP HC WANG CIV 2006 483 65

Citation

openlaw-084e9053_a0a6_4ad9_a9fb_6d0a533a6880.pdf
Court

High Court

The purchasers' solicitor's 29 August 2003 communication that conditions were waived or fulfilled rendered the contract unconditional and defeated purchasers' subsequent defences based on non‑provision of 2003 accounts or related implied or separate promises; there was no actionable independent promise, no basis to imply further terms, the gaming machine allegations were contradicted and not reasonably arguable, and summary judgment was therefore appropriate; appeal dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

5-9 THE RISE LIMITED v RENTAL SPACE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2515

CHENG’S CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD v GENERUS LIVING GROUP LTD [2023] NZHC 1373

LI v GSC HOLDINGS LTD [2018] NZHC 1769

SINGH AND BOURCHIER AS TRUSTEES OF SHEAN SINGH FAMILY TRUST v POTTERS PARK PROPERTY LIMITED CA604/2014 [2015] NZCA 146

WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED v SONGLE SUPERMARKET LIMITED & ORS [2014] NZHC 2548

BARTHOLOMEW AND ORS V MARIMA VALLEY FARM LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-454-373

YARDLEY AND WILLIAMS V SHARP AND SHARP HC WANG CIV 2006 483 65