28 Apr 2023
The obligation to pay the second tranche of the deposit became unconditionally payable when the prior agreement settled; the defendant did not avoid or cancel the contract before that obligation accrued and cancellation after accrual did not discharge the obligation; therefore the defendant had no real defence to the claim for the second tranche deposit and summary judgment was appropriate.
3 Apr 2023
Clause 2 construed as permitting Kempton to satisfy the resource-consent condition by using all commercially reasonable endeavours and, if approvals were close, to extend the date by up to two months (to 1 September 2018); Kempton obtained consent on 28–29 August 2018 and notified StraitNZ and received no objection, so the condition was satisfied within the specified period; StraitNZ's written cancellation on 20 September 2018 was therefore an unlawful repudiation; estoppel, waiver, variation and affirmation were not established; damages assessed on a mixed methodology to reflect expectation…
8 Sept 2022
The Court dismissed the appeal: the council lawfully limited its assessment to r13.4.7.1 matters and there was adequate information and analysis in the Report to conclude the adverse effects on the appellants were less than minor for notification purposes; the condition precedent requiring road works is lawful because the consent does not authorise works on third-party land without agreement or separate statutory authority, so the appellants were not 'affected persons' under s95E RMA.
7 Sept 2022
Leave was refused because the proposed appeal raised no question of general or public importance and no risk of miscarriage of justice; on the facts the Court of Appeal had correctly held the clause was for the purchaser's sole benefit and waivable, preventing the vendor's cancellation.
17 Dec 2021
AMP's summary judgment application was dismissed because AMP failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that none of Fletcher's causes of action could succeed: there are material factual disputes including uncertainty as to the operative policy wording and whether AMP's requests under clause 15 were reasonable; further expert evidence may be required and the issues are unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment.
3 Sept 2021
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the dispositive legal questions for full argument: whether breach of the obligation to provide reasonable access can defeat the right to avoid the agreement and whether such a breach is limited to a claim for damages or can found avoidance; these questions require analysis of materiality and counterfactual proof.
21 Sept 2020
Special leave was dismissed because the High Court conducted its own independent assessment of contract interpretation so any different standard of review would not change the outcome; the contested issues are matters of contractual interpretation unsuited to a second appeal and the finality of arbitral awards outweighs the parties' interest in further litigation.
19 Jun 2019
Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff because the purchaser elected not to submit a development plan for an economic reason not contemplated by the contract; clause 32.2 imposed a mandatory obligation to provide a development plan and clause 26.1(b)(i) (special condition) governs release of deposits, so the purchaser cannot rely on its own breach or an implied term permitting termination for economic unviability.
19 Dec 2018
The Court held the respondent was not contractually required to follow the schematic Option 2 line exactly and, in any event, the roadway as constructed complied with the contractual specifications (width and gradient). The construction of the roadway was not a condition precedent to the separate payment obligation for fencing; alternatively the appellant is estopped from withholding payment because she (through her agent) accepted and relied on the as-built roadway. Therefore the appellant's appeal fails and the respondent is entitled to the $12,500 and costs.
24 Nov 2017
The Council breached express notice obligations in the Protection Wording and Scheme Rules by failing to notify Riskpool of the High Court proceedings as soon as practicable; that obligation was a condition precedent to indemnity; Riskpool was materially prejudiced because it had commuted its reinsurance with Swiss Re shortly after and would not have accepted the commutation on the same terms had it known of the claim; s 9 Insurance Law Reform Act did not apply because the arrangement was not a contract of insurance but a mutual with discretionary indemnity; accordingly Riskpool lawfully decl…