28 Oct 2011
SARGISON V VINPRO LIMITED HC DUN CIV-2011-412-000453
- Citation
- openlaw-b70c332f_61f3_4033_b547_6591730bdbda.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Both summary judgment applications were refused because there was a genuine and material dispute about the correct construction of paragraph 4b(i) of the Preservation Order and whether the proviso operated as a condition or mere assumption; interpretation may require consideration of negotiation material and possibly cross-examination, so neither party satisfied the high threshold required for summary judgment. The Court granted an extension for filing a reply and reserved costs.