29 Apr 2021
The Tribunal did not err in law in concluding the lease contains no implied obligation on the lessors to replace fixtures and fittings; the absence of an express obligation was a rational commercial allocation of responsibility to the lessee and therefore there was no gap warranting implication of a term; accordingly leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 Sept 2020
The plaintiff's application for leave to appeal did not amount to pursuing an argument that lacked merit or unreasonably increase costs under r14.6(3)(b); the plaintiff was entitled to pursue the challenge, the case was short and not complex, there was no evidence of unjustified refusal to accept legal argument or an ulterior motive, and therefore increased costs or a 50% uplift are not justified; award costs on a 2B basis to the defendant.
16 Mar 2009
On the evidence the Court found a real risk of dissipation based on unexplained transfers and conduct; the Court found a good arguable case that clause 6.2 could impose liability where a vendor elected to complete works originally requiring consent without obtaining one (office and heated pool), but did not find a good arguable case for an implied term of disclosure of weathertightness; accordingly the Court granted a limited freezing order attaching to the first $30,000 of net sale proceeds of Lot 3 to protect the applicant's arguable position.
1 Mar 2006
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the dispute involved the application of settled legal principles to a particular and complex set of facts, raised no point of law of general or public importance and was not necessary to be resolved in the interests of justice under s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.