24 Nov 2016
The court found the caveator established an arguable case: the alleged dishonest conduct and the novel question of implying a limited duty of good faith into the parties' dealings involved disputed facts and legal issues that could not be resolved summarily, so the caveat must be sustained pending substantive proceedings.
10 Feb 2012
The Court ordered further and better discovery in terms of the parties' consent memorandum because there were grounds to believe Nissan had not discovered documents it should have; granted leave to file the fourth amended statement of claim and directed timetabled further evidence; declined to make a costs order for the discovery application (costs to lie where they fall) and reserved costs of the amendment to the trial judge.
25 Nov 2008
The strike out application was dismissed because implication of a duty of good faith into the contractual framework governing the option was an arguable cause of action in a developing area of law, the pleaded claim was not clearly untenable as a matter of law, and statutory provisions relied on by the appellant did not render the claim unarguable; the discovery orders were modified and confirmed in part as relevant to the pleaded campaign allegation.
28 Mar 2008
The caveat was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonably arguable proprietary interest under s137: an implied term of good faith was not appropriate for a transactional sale and would fail BP Refinery tests, and tortious or Fair Trading Act remedies could not be shown to retroactively reinstate an estate or interest in land given s14 does not cover representations about a proposed purchaser and s43 relief was not shown to be available in the circumstances.
16 May 2007
The landlord's 10 October 2005 letter was conditional upon the purchaser agreeing to relocation and therefore did not constitute the required unconditional consent; the purchasers did not breach clause 8.2(4) nor any implied duty of good faith, and time for fulfilment remained of the essence so cancellation on 14 October 2005 was valid; the lease proviso is a qualification on the lessee's covenant not to assign and does not give rise to damages against the lessor, and the preservation order insulated the plaintiff's retention of the yacht from a detinue claim; accordingly plaintiff's claims a…