29 Oct 2021
Clause 20.3 was not for the sole benefit of FSD and therefore could not be unilaterally waived by FSD; because clause 20.3 was neither satisfied nor waived by 1 October 2020, Ms Liu validly avoided the agreement by notice dated 2 October 2020 under clause 9.10(5) and clause 21.1, entitling her to have FSD's caveat removed.
3 Jun 2015
The court dismissed the application to sustain the caveat: although the sub-sale was ratified, Torbay View's caveat was effectively a second caveat in respect of the same interest as Land Trust Ltd's earlier caveat and required a High Court order under s148 which was not obtained; additionally clause 20 was interdependent and not unilaterally waived by Glenvar, Glenvar validly avoided the head agreement under the contract's condition regime, and consequently Torbay View had no caveatable interest to sustain.
24 Sept 2010
On the material before the Court, clause 22.9 was not solely for the purchasers' benefit because Marima had an independent, legitimate interest arising from Fonterra's constitution which restricted transfers to accepted suppliers; accordingly the clause could not be unilaterally waived by the purchasers and summary judgment was inappropriate; the appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.