New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abandonment of contract

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2019

COFFEY v WALKER [2019] NZHC 2795

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2795
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because the defendant raised a reasonably arguable defence that the sale agreement had been induced by material misrepresentations and was validly cancelled in mid-2009; those issues involve contested factual inquiries (existence and content of pre-contractual statements, reliance, and cancellation by conduct) that cannot be resolved on a summary judgment application and require full evidence and disclosure.
11 Mar 2008

ALLAN V AIW HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD HC AK CIV 2007-404-6272

Citation

openlaw-baa1a539_3442_414b_af10_42ab81e43b78.pdf
Court

High Court

The caveator has demonstrated a reasonably arguable case for an interest in the land based on the written agreement for sale and purchase; the affidavits and conduct do not make it patently clear the caveat cannot be maintained; delay alone without demonstrated prejudice does not require removal; accordingly the application to remove the caveat is held over to allow the caveator opportunity to commence enforcement proceedings.
31 Jan 2006

SYMPHONY PROPERTIES LIMITED V PHILIP KEITH MATHESON HC AK CIV-2004-404-2865

Citation

openlaw-306ae707_6450_4981_b15c_eab3446ac042.pdf
Court

High Court

Empress failed to show on the exacting test for defendant's summary judgment that none of the respondents' claims can succeed; Matheson is a party to the Loan Contract as covenantor/borrower and can sue; 51 Hobson, though a nominee to the sale, may have suffered loss because of potential liability under the nomination arrangement; silence did not amount to abandonment of the Loan Contract; accordingly summary judgment was dismissed.
5 Jun 2003

JOWADA HOLDINGS LIMITED V CULLEN INVESTMENTS LIMITED And Anor CA CA248/02

Citation

openlaw-d8091ea6_cd2d_4558_b9bf_e2ef553999d2.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the 29 March 2001 letter must be read broadly: the fee obligation is triggered if the respondents or their associates 'proceed with the transaction' such that they gain control of over 51% of the target, regardless of the specific acquisition mechanism; the agreement had not been abandoned; the 11 January 2002 letter did not offer the appellant an option to participate on equally favourable terms and so did not relieve the respondents of liability; summary judgment was appropriate and the appellant was entitled to the advisory fee (1.5% = $886,727) against the first respondent,…

New Zealand Case Law

COFFEY v WALKER [2019] NZHC 2795

ALLAN V AIW HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD HC AK CIV 2007-404-6272

SYMPHONY PROPERTIES LIMITED V PHILIP KEITH MATHESON HC AK CIV-2004-404-2865

JOWADA HOLDINGS LIMITED V CULLEN INVESTMENTS LIMITED And Anor CA CA248/02