13 Jul 2021
Refusal of interim injunction because there was a serious question to be tried but the balance of convenience clearly favoured the defendant: likely amenity loss to plaintiff was slight and compensable, whereas halting construction would cause significant, difficult-to-quantify and irreparable prejudice to defendant’s ability to complete the golf-course project on schedule.
26 Nov 2018
The Court held that the three term deposits were monies held on deposit in the respondent's sole name falling within clause 5 of schedule B and therefore constituted relationship property at the date of separation; the agreement was not a s21 contracting out agreement because it was not entered into in contemplation of marriage, but the agreement nevertheless survived the parties' later marriage by operation of ss21P and 21R of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; accordingly the classification of the term deposits as relationship property was dispositive and the appeal was allowed.
14 Jul 2014
The Court held that the Associate Judge was correct to refuse summary judgment because the covenant's wording and contextual inconsistencies (including references to an incorporated society, headings referring to a non‑existent club, and ambiguity about members' rights) meant further admissible evidence could assist interpretation, so the defendant had not established a complete, uncontestable defence.