9 Feb 2016
As one of the trustees and a named purchaser in the written contract, the applicant acquired an equitable estate or interest capable of supporting a caveat despite the contract being conditional; the agent argument failed because the applicant also contracted as trustee/purchaser and a caveat may be lodged by a person with an interest even if co-trustees exist; therefore the caveat must not lapse.
5 Feb 2015
Kervus held a caveatable equitable interest but Aston neither consented to the sale nor was shown to be disentitled by conduct; critically, Aston failed to prove on the evidence that it had in fact exercised its power of sale because there was no evidence conditions to the asserted sale had been satisfied or waived — therefore the caveat could not be removed.
2 Apr 2014
Nopera failed to establish an arguable case that the Godsiffs' conduct caused its failure to confirm the due diligence clause by the deadline; accordingly the Godsiffs were entitled to cancel and the caveat could not be sustained even though, generally, a contract conditional on OIA consent can pass an equitable interest.
17 Oct 2013
Respondent established a reasonably arguable case that the sale agreement remained on foot (based on the later texts, conduct and banking of the deposit) and, weighing the discretionary factors and balance of convenience, the court declined to remove the caveat and dismissed the application to remove it.
22 Aug 2011
The defendant's application for particular discovery is granted in part: documents relating to any applications by the plaintiff to obtain finance in respect of the Apex House transaction made after 23 December 2009 are relevant to, and may assist in inferring, whether the parties entered a new contract post-23 December 2009 and therefore must be discovered; documents and finance applications prior to 23 December 2009 are irrelevant to the question whether the original contract was validly cancelled on that date and are not discoverable.
3 Apr 2009
Clause 15 must be construed objectively as requiring council consent for the proposed use as applied for; because the defendant did not apply for consent for any expansion and there is insufficient evidence about the reasonableness and cost of complying with the ventilation condition, the defendant has raised a marginal but arguable defence that the contract should not be specifically enforced; accordingly summary judgment for specific performance is declined and the matter must proceed to trial to resolve the factual disputes.
30 Sept 2008
On the agreed facts the plaintiff used reasonable endeavours to obtain OIO consent, did not cause the failure of the condition, and there was no arguable defence; summary judgment awarded for return of the deposit with interest.
5 Jun 2007
The agreement was avoided on 10 February 2005 when the condition failed; appellants became trespassers from that date and are liable for occupation at $1,000 per month, both spouses are liable as joint tortfeasors or in unjust enrichment, the appellants' undeveloped counterclaim did not justify staying enforcement, and the appeal is dismissed while cross‑appeal is allowed to add $1,133 with interest at 7.5% from 25 August 2006.
28 Jun 2006
The court found on the evidence that clause 19 was satisfied by telephone before the 4pm deadline so the prior conditional agreement became unconditional; because the backup agreement expressly terminated if the prior agreement became unconditional, the backup agreement no longer created an equitable interest capable of supporting the caveat; therefore the caveat had no present justification and must be removed under s143 Land Transfer Act 1952.
16 Nov 2005
The applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable counterclaim/set-off sufficient to reduce the statutory demand below the prescribed amount because the contract lapsed for failure to obtain resource consent and the unnumbered contractual provision required refund of the deposit less administration/drafting costs, but the applicant's claimed administration costs lacked sufficient particularity to establish entitlement to offset the statutory demand; quantum meruit was not available because the contract provided for reimbursement and the applicant did not prove the contractual entitlement.