4 Mar 2010
BUSBY AND ANOR V SARGENT AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-435-215
- Citation
- openlaw-74759ae9_a10a_4daa_ae91_63f6e49477f5.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Given the arbitrator’s factual findings and correct application of contractual interpretation principles, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a strongly or very strongly arguable case that the arbitrator erred in law on either (a) treating the mortgage/security arrangement as the $350,000 capital contribution under cl 2.2 or (b) holding that cl 4.5 limited deductions to disposal expenses and did not permit set off of operating/development expenditure against capital gain; accordingly leave to appeal under Schedule 2 cl 5(1)(c) is declined.