18 Feb 2016
There was no requisitionable defect because the title was limited as to parcels and the true boundaries could not be determined without a survey under s 207; no actionable misrepresentation or contractual mistake was established; purchaser was not entitled to cancel; appeal allowed and judgment entered for vendors on counterclaim for losses and forfeiture of deposit.
15 Oct 2014
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the High Court decision: Station breached essential terms in respect of the furniture packages and the obligation to procure a serviced-apartment management arrangement such that by mid‑2008 Station was not entitled to call for settlement; the appellants were therefore entitled to refuse to complete and Station's cancellation was ineffective. The defective practical completion certificate from Maltbys (rather than the named architect) did not, standing alone, constitute a repudiation by Station because it could have been rectified, but combined…
13 Sept 2012
Clause 21.5 of the Gasson agreement must be construed to preserve the mortgagor's equity of redemption until the settlement date specified in the agreement; the unconditional sale by Masefield to Dragonwood on 1 June 2012 therefore amounted to a sale by "any other party" under cl 21.5(b), permitting Guardian Trust to validly cancel the Gasson agreement on 19 June 2012; Gasson Street failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable interest to support its caveat and the caveat must be removed.
10 Nov 2011
Agent's oral representations and brochure constituted representations on behalf of the plaintiff; representations that lot 14 had clear sea views were false in substance, were essential to the defendant's decision to contract and induced him to enter the contract; the misrepresentation also substantially reduced the benefit of the contract to the defendant; accordingly the defendant lawfully cancelled the contract under s7 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 and plaintiff's application for specific performance failed.
11 Apr 2011
The defendant's interlocutory applications were dismissed because there are genuine disputes of fact about the meaning and effect of the Settlement Agreement (in particular clause 10 regarding Westpac's consent) and about pre- and post-JSC conduct; those factual disputes preclude summary judgment, strike out or stay and do not justify invoking the Court's inherent jurisdiction; accordingly the proceedings remain on foot and costs are awarded to the plaintiff.
16 Feb 2011
The guarantee was unenforceable because Ms Evans entered the licensing agreement and guarantee as a result of actual undue influence by Mr and Mrs Wood: there was a relationship of trust and confidence, the transaction called for explanation, the transaction was significantly disadvantageous to Ms Evans and advantageous to the Woods, and the independent legal advice obtained was insufficient to rebut the presumption or effect of undue influence; accordingly the guarantee was set aside.
4 Dec 2009
Summary judgment for specific performance was dismissed because defendants demonstrated arguable defences (misrepresentation, non‑disclosure of subsoil issues and material change by the Consent Notice) and factual issues about vendor knowledge and materiality required trial and discovery; equitable relief was not appropriate on summary judgment.
27 Aug 2009
Clause 10.1(d) of the distribution agreements clearly and unambiguously excluded the distributors' right to set-off against sums owing for product, clause 14.6 preserved that obligation post-termination, the residual discretion should not be used to defeat the commercial bargain, and therefore summary judgment should be entered for the appellant for the claimed sums.
27 Apr 2007
The defendant's conduct, notably the 11 August 2005 letter indicating imminent settlement and inviting preparatory steps, constituted an unequivocal election to affirm the contract and thereby prevented the defendant from exercising its later purported cancellation under clause 2.7 as extended; consequently the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought, subject to determination of the appropriate form of judgment given outstanding factual issues.
6 Mar 2007
There is a serious question to be tried on whether the sale and purchase agreement was validly cancelled and whether clause 27 of the Homebond agreement obliges NZHB to pay where the purchaser has cancelled; given the risk of irreversible prejudice to the purchasers if payment is made now (NZHB can recover and has security; vendor may be liquidated) the balance of convenience favours granting interim relief restraining payment pending further order.